Second Appeal is by defendant in O.S. No.8858 of 1972, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. The appeal was once heard, and, as per judgment dated 22. 1996, I set aside the concurrent judgments of both the courts below, and the second appeal was allowed. On that day, there was no appearance for the second respondent, and I heard the appellant alone. Thereafter, C.M.P. No.9628 of 1996 was filed to re-open the case, stating that on the date when the second appeal was heard, learned counsel for the second respondent herein could not appear, and in fact, even notice of second appeal was not served on them (respondents).

2. Since I was convinced with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of that petition, I allowed the same and restored the second appeal to file. Thereafter, I heard the second appeal on merits. Learned counsel on both sides were heard.

3. Even though the plaintiffs claim various reliefs in the plaint, in this second appeal, we are concerned only with the right of easement. Reliefs 3 and 4 in the plaint read thus:

"(3) declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the right of pathway marked "ZYXT" in the Schedule ‘B’; and

(4) granting a pe