The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 15 of the Easements Act, emphasizing the need for continuous and uninterrupted use to establish prescriptive rights.

This Second Appeal is directed against Judgment in A.S.No.15 of 1994 on the file of Sub court, Chidambaram, reversing the Judgment of the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the Plaintiffs suit for declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to use and enjoy suit property as road and for permanent injunction. Unsuccessful deceased Plaintiff is the Appellant in the Second Appeal. Pending Second Appeal deceased Appellant Pazhamalai Pillai died and Appellants 2 to 6 were substituted in the place of him.

2. The suit pathway is situated on the South of main road and runs through R.S.Nos. 33/2, 33/3, 33/4 and R.S.No.34 and stopped in front of the Plaintiffs house situated in R.S.No.35. All these three survey numbers, R.S.No.33/2 is Kulam Poromboke" belonging to the Government. The R.S.No.33/4 is Patta land of the Appellants. On the south of the main road, there is a channel and there is a culvert over the channel connecting the main road and the suit pathway.

3. The case of Plaintiffs / Appellants is that the suit property is a part of road or pathway which runs from North to South . Plaintiffs and other villagers using the suit road or pathway, which is the only road or pathway to reach their houses and there is no other access. The Panchayat has also laid road over the suit property, light posts are installed by the Panchayat in the suit road. A deep bore well hand pump has been installed by the Panchayat in a part of the road or pathway. The road runs from north to south directions and takes a turn towards west and again it takes turn towards south. There are number of houses situated in the western side of the road. The road runs through four survey numbers, viz., 33/2, 33/3, 33/4 and 34. 33/4 is the patta land of the Plaintiffs (PW 1 since deceased) one cent in S.No.33/3 was the patta land of one Rajasekaran. S.No.33/2 is poromboke land. The suit road/pathway was formed for more than 60 years back and it has been used by the villagers as road or pathway from time immemorial.

4. The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that he had purchased one cent in S.No.33/3, which is in the centre of the road from one Rajasekaran under Ex.B1 sale deed dated 31.05.1981. The contention of the first defendant is that his vendor was enjoying one cent by raising vegetables thereon by putting up fence on all four sides. According to the first Defendant he has been cultivating R.S.No.33/3 by growing vegetable and that he has been paying Kist for the said land. First Defendant has specifically denied the user of the suit property as a road and has emphatically denied claim of easementry right.

5. The 2nd Defendant / District Collector filed written statement admitting existence of the road. In the written statement, 2nd Defendant has averred that R.S.No.33/3 is a patta land and if the pattadar puts up a shed in the land it will obstruct the use of pathway. 2nd Defendant has further averred that in the village plan the road is marked as pathway.

.6. On the above pleadings relevant issues were framed. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that there is existence of road which has been used for long time more than a statutory period. Pointing out the location of electric poles and existence of pathway in Ex.A.11 "Field Map Book" the trial Court held that the Plaintiffs have established their long user over the suit pathway and decreed the Plaintiffs suit.

7. Aggrieved, unsuccessful the 1st defendant preferred appeal. Finding that Plaintiffs have not proved the pathway in existence for more that twenty years, lower Appellate Court held that Plaintiffs have not proved their right of user of pathway. Lower Appellate Court further held that the 1st Defendant being a servient owner, Plaintiffs cannot seek for declaration. Pointing out existence of bore well and electric poles in the centre of the road, lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal setting aside th