Only on the ground of inconvenience an easement of necessity cannot be claimed.

Additional plaintiffs 2 to 7, who are legal heirs of original plaintiff in O.S.No. 105 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Gobichettipalayam, (renumbered as O.S.87 of 1982, on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam), are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the title over the suit property and also for other consequential reliefs which are described thus:

“(a) Declaring the plaintiff’s title of the suit property;

(b) Declaring plaintiff’s easement right in the suit cart track for using and taking carts, cattle and men through the cart track to the suit property;

(c) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their relatives and on from interfering the suit property peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property and from obstructing or preventing the free user of the cart track by the plaintiff; and (d) Awarding the cost of the suit...”

The suit property is described thus:

“An extent of 2 acres and 933/4 cents situated in the northern portion in S.F. No.369 and 370 in Kondappanaickenpalayam village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk along with the cart-track starting from the Panchayat Board road which proceeds from Panchayat Board Road through S.F.No.364, and other fields and reaches the suit property at point A with the breadth of 10 feet on shown in the red marked portion in the plaint plan attached herewith in S.F. 364, S.F. 363 and S.F. 369.”

3. In the plaint, it is averred that the properly originally belonged to one Sankarappa Gounder, being his ancestral property and the original plaintiff purchased the same on 211. 1970 for valuable consideration of Rs.3,000. The property included in the sale deeds is 2 acres and 933/4 cents in S.F.Nos.369 and 370 along with the cart track. It is said that Sankarappa Gounder was raising crops and subsequent to the sale plaintiff is in possession of the suit property from the date of sale deed and he also dug a well and installed an electric motor pumpset. It is his further case that the suit cart track as shown in the plan attached to the plaint is starting from the Panchayat Board Road which is situated on the southern portion of the first defendant’s land. It is his further case that a cart track having a width of 10 feet starts from the south western corner of the first defendant’s property and it goes upto the southern end of the plaintiff’s property. This, according to the appellant, is absolutely necessary for their enjoyment and plaintiff and his predecessors were in enjoyment of the same for the last more than 40 years. It is said that over the suit property, defendants have no right. But they are adjoining property owners. Due to some ill-feeling prior to the institution of the suit, they are interfering with their peaceful possession and are attempting to prevent them from using the cart track. The defendants have no manner of right to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit cart track. It is said that the plaintiffs have no other way to reach the suit pathway. In view of the conduct of the defendants, the suit was necessitated, and the plaintiff prays for declaration of title over the suit property and also claims an easementary right over the suit cart track. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the alleged easement is claimed thus:

“...The track is specifically mentioned in the sale deed dated 211. 1970 by prescription and necessity. ...”

Originally there were only two defendants. After the original plaintiff’s death, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional plaintiffs 2 to 7, and after the second defendant filed written statement, defendants 3 to 7 were also impleaded.

4. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, he disputed the claim of the plaintiff to the suit cart track. According to him, there is no cart track. It is contended therein that from the southern panchayat road, the owners of the property wanted to provide a road for which sale deeds were taken and given between d