JUDGMENT :- The unsuccessful defendants, who have lost before the Courts below are appellants in this second appeal. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 429 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathiamangalam for declaration to declare the easementary right of the plaintiffs over the suit cart track and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit cart track by the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the defendants have preferred appeal before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in A. S. No. 23 of 1990, which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiffs are that the properties marked in red colour in the rough sketch presented along with the plaint belonged to the plaintiffs by virtue of a settlement deed dated 11-6-1980 executed by one Rengappa Gounder, husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4. The properties marked in blue colour in the sketch belonged to the 1st defendant; that the defendants 2 and 3 are sons of the 1st defendant and the 4th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The portions marked in yellow colour referred as "ABCD" in the plan is the suit cart track, which is about 12 feet breadth had been in enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their predecessors for more than 60 years continuously, peacefully and without any interruption. Except the suit cart track, there is no other track to reach the field from Nambiyur-Arasur road or any other common road and the plaintiffs have acquired the right of way by prescription. The 1st defendant has purchased the land both on the Northern and southern side of the cart track. The plaintiffs have the right of easement of necessity also. Misunderstanding developed between the plaintiffs and defendants consequent to the obtaining of electricity connection by the plaintiffs to their well, with the result the defendants were attempting to obstruct the plaintiffs from using the cart track, hence the suit.

3. It is the case of the defendants that there is no such cart track as alleged by the plaintiffs. The portion of land alleged to be the suit cart track absolutely belonged to the defendants. The plaintiffs have no right whatsoever in it. The defendants have laid the suit cart track so as to reach their residential houses, Kalam etc., and the suit cart track ends with the defendants house. The defendants have also erected a gate at a point marked "A" which has been in exclusive use of them. The plaintiffs never used the suit cart track to reach their land. The 'ittery' is located on the Northern side of the plaintiffs property, which is the access to the plaintiffs' properties. The averment that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have been using the suit cart track for more than 60 years continuously, peacefully and without any interruption is false. The defendants have also denied that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title were in enjoyment of the suit cart track even before purchasing the lands on the Northern and Southern side of it. The plaintiffs have attempted to obstruct the defendants from drawing water from the common well marked as PW2. The defendants have filed a suit in O.S. No. 136 of 1986 and obtained an interim injunction in I.A. No. 233 of 1986 on 13-1-1986 against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have instituted this counterblast suit on vexatious grounds.

4. The trial court has framed two issues namely (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and declaration? And (ii) To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to ?

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs have marked Exs. A1 to A5 and the plaintiffs examined D4 as PW1, Marappan as PW2 and Rengappa Gounder as PW3. the defendants have marked Exs. B1 to B10 and examined the first defendant as DW1 and Kuppanna Gounder as DW2. The trial Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner, whose report and plan were marked as Exs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document