ORDER: The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below has filed these second appeals.

2. The suit property among other properties originally belonged to one Thangammal She settled her properties under Ex.A-1 dated 6.1.1956 in favour of her three sons, namely, Sriranga Gounder, Ramasamy Gounder and the appellant. ‘A’ Schedule properties as shown in Ex.A-1 were given to the said Sriranga Gounder, and Ramasami Gounder. ‘B’ Schedule properties as shown in Ex.A-1 were given to the first appellant/ defendant. Sriranga Gounder and Ramasami Gounder divided the ‘A’ Schedule properties mentioned under Ex.A-1 in and by partition deed marked as Ex.A-2 dated 6.7.1979. Under Ex.A-3, dated 25.10.1979, Sriranga Gounder sold his undivided portion to the plaintiff, as the said property was kept in common inspite of the partition deed under Ex.A-2. By a document marked as Ex.A-4 dated 31.10.1979, the said property was divided between the plaintiff and Ramaswami. On the basis of the said partition deed, the plaintiff claims that he got a pathway right to an extent of 6 ft. width from north-eastern corner of the cattle shed leading to Idayanthottam Street. According to the plaintiff, the said right has been mentioned in the settlement deed under Ex.A-1 itself. Stating that the defendant started objecting to the user of the 6 ft. width pathway, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.248 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode, seeking for a declaration of the plaintiff’s right in the pathway marked in blue colour on the plaint plan and for permanent injunction.

3. Stating that the plaintiff has to drain the drainage water through the said pathway on the north eastern corner which runs east of the house and turns towards north west of the house leased out by the defendant to a third party for running an automobile workshop, and the plaintiff has no other way to drain the water, he filed another suit in O.S. No.1169 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode. He has also stated that he proposed to dig an underground drainage along the pathway marked blue in colour in the plaint plan, and it is an easement of necessity. On the basis that the defendant had objected to the digging of underground drainage by plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the said suit in O.S. No.1169 of 1980 seeking for declaration declaring the plaintiff’s right to drain the water along the pathway marked blue in colour in the plaint plan as an easement of necessity and for injunction.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff is not entitled to the use the blue marked portion as shown in the plaint plan, and he never exercised any right over the suit property. The defendant has also claimed that he is the absolute owner of the blue marked portion and had been in possession of the suit property, eversince the year 1956. He has also stated that pending suit, after obtaining an ex parte order of interim injunction, the plaintiff had put up the drainage, and the same has to be removed. He has specifically stated that the length and breadth of the blue marked portion was not furnished by the plaintiff either in the plaint plan or in the plaint. According to him, there is a regular drainage north of the suit property which runs south to north and joins a very big drainage running east-west. The plaintiff being a purchaser of the vacant site and having constructed a building therein has to drain the water only through the drainage, north-south, in the said drainage. The plaintiff’s claim on the basis of easement of necessity cannot be sustained in law. On the basis of the abovesaid pleadings, the first appellant/ defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court decreed the suits as prayed for. So the first appellant filed appeal in A.S. Nos.22 and 5 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Hence, these second app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document