The main legal point established in the judgment is that for claiming easementary right, there must be a dominant and servient tenement, and the claimant must accommodate the dominant tenement. The existence of alternative pathways also affects the claim of easementary right.

The unsuccessful and undaunted plaintiff as appellant in the present second appeal has challenged the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No.64 of 2000 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu and in Appeal Suit No.32 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Pattukottai.

2. The present suit has been instituted for declaring that the plaintiff is having easmentary right over the suit pathway which is in existence in RS.No.52C/16B2 and also for passing permanent and mandatory injunctions, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as defendant.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land comprised in old RS.No.52C/14, new RS.No.52C/7B3. The plaintiff has constructed a house in the said survey number. In front of the house of the plaintiff, a pathway is in existence, running north south and subsequently towards east and running east-west and joined on main road. The pathway in dispute has been described as ABCD in the plaint plan and the same is in existence from time immemorial. The said pathway commences from the main road at point AB and joined on the main road at point CD. The said pathway is nothing but a public pathway which is in existence from time immemorial. The house owners on either side are using the same. The house of the defendant is situate on the southern side of the suit pathway and the defendant is the owner of RS.No.52C-16. The father of the defendant by name Chandrakasa Pullavarayar has prevented the occupiers on either side of the suit pathway from using the same in the year 1973 and the dispute has been referred to village panchayat and subsequently a Muchalika has come into existence. In the year 1992, Natham survey has been conducted. During Natham survey, the suit pathway has been detailed in Field Measurement Book as public pathway. In Natham survey, land of the plaintiff has been sub divided as 52C-7B3 and 52C-7B4. The land of the defendant has been sub divided as 52C-16B1, 16B2 and 16B3. Now the defendant has made attempt to prevent the plaintiff and others from using the suit pathway and also tried to put up construction in RS.No.52C-16B2 and the disputed area has been shown as MNOP in the plaint plan. The plaintiff has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Orathanad. But no fruitful action has come out. The plaintiff is having easmentary right over the suit pathway. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred that the house of the plaintiff is situate in RS.No.52C/7B3. There is no pathway from the house of the plaintiff across RS.No.52C/16 as stated in the plaint. It is false to say that the pathway in question starts from point AB and joints the road at point CD. The alleged pathway is nothing but patta land of the defendant and the same is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendant. Neither the defendant nor his father permitted anybody to use the same as pathway. No natham survey has been conducted in the year 1992 as alleged in the plaint. It is false to contend that the suit pathway has been detailed in revenue records as pathway. There is no demarcation on ground to identify the alleged sub division. The plaintiff is not having any right over the land of the defendant. It is false to say that the plaintiff is having easmentary right over the alleged suit pathway. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.32 of 2007 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappr