This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.1/2002 arising out of the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and also granting Mandatory Injunction directing removal of stone wall (fy;fl;L). Unsuccessful Defendants are the Appellants.

.2. The dispute is in respect of cart-track in S.No.65/7 which is situated on the southern side of the lands of Plaintiff. Case of Plaintiff is that he owns agricultural lands in S.Nos.65/5 and 65/6 in Sokkanathapuram village, Attur Taluk and the suit cart-track is situated in S.No.65/7 on the southern side of Plaintiffs land. Further case of Plaintiff is that he has got right of access to his lands from any point of the suit cart-track, which is common to the Plaintiff and Defendants. It is further stated that due to previous enmity, Defendants arranged to put up a stone wall (fy;fl;L) along the northern boundary of the suit cart-track and annexing the same to their Patta land on or about 1st September 1997. Therefore, Plaintiff filed the suit for (i) Declaring that Plaintiff has got right to have access to his Patta lands from the suit cart-track; (ii) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of his right of access to the Patta land from the suit cart-track; and (iii) Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to remove the obstructions created by them by putting a stone wall along the northern side of cart-track.

3. Defendants filed written statement admitting the existence of cart-track in S.No.65/7 which lies in between the lands of Plaintiff and Defendants from Thandavarayapuram Panchayat Road proceeds east-west and Defendants never prevented the Plaintiff from using the suit cart-track by putting up a stone wall. Case of Defendants is that Plaintiffs lands are lower than the cart-track by 2 to 3 feet and Plaintiff cannot use the cart-track on the western side of the Well portion. According to the Defendants, Plaintiff reduced the width of the cart-track and prevented from taking vehicles. It is averred that the revenue officials measured the lands and the panchayatdars also directed to put up a stone wall to prevent the Plaintiff from reducing the width of the cart-track and accordingly, Defendants constructed the stone wall (fy;fl;L) as directed by the panchayatdars, only in order to prevent the Plaintiff from reducing the width of the carttrack.

4. On the above pleadings, four Issues were framed. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Advocate-Commissioner was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. 4th Defendant was examined as DW1 and panchayatdars were examined as DWs.2 and 3. Exs.C1 to C5 were marked.

.5. Upon consideration of evidence, trial Court held that Plaintiff is entitled to use suit cart-track without disturbing the cart-track and the stone wall and trial Court also granted Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit cart-track. On the basis of Commissioners Report, trial court further held that Plaintiff was not using the cart-track on the western side of his Well portion, since the said portion of his land is 3 feet lower than the cart-track. Referring to the evidence of DWs.2 and 3, trial Court further held that the stone wall was constructed only as per decision of the panchayatdars. In so far as relief of Mandatory Injunction is concerned, trial Court held that if the stone wall on the northern side of cart-track is removed, the cart-track cannot be used and the trial Court declined the relief of Mandatory Injunction.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of prayer for Mandatory Injunction, Plaintiff preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.1/2002 on the file of Sub-Court, Attur. The lower Appellate Court rejected the contention of the Defendants that the stone wall was constructed mainly for preventing any damage to the cart-track due to soil erosion. Pointing out that the suit cart-track is in S.No.65/