The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, to determine the rights of the parties regarding easements, property use, and trespass.

1. These second appeals are filed by the defendants, inveighing the judgement and decree dated dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S.No.106 of 2006 and in the cross appeal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2006 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.611 of 2002, which was filed seeking permanent and mandatory injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals would run thus: (a) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "to pass a judgement and decree against the defendant; a) Restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants in anyway disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff encroaching or any manner by means of permanent injunction. b) directing the defendants to remove the three windows and the eaves of the tiled roof projection towards the suit property situated in the eaves of the tiled roof projection towards the suit property situated in the North South Wall in the eastern boundary of the suit property by means of mandatory injunction.."

(extracted as such)

(b) The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement along with the counter claim making the following claims: "to declare the defendants' easementary right of access over the eastern vacant site of the suit property for white washing, repairing and maintaining their western "AB" wall described in the schedule and consequential permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from in any way interfering with their right of entry into the eastern vacant site of the suit property for the purposes of white washing, repairing and maintaining 'AB" wall: to declare the defendants' easementary right of projection of eaves of their western tiled roof into the suit property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from cutting down the projecting eaves and draining rain water falling therefrom into the suit property; to direct the plaintiff to pay the costs of counter claim."

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.A1 to A13. On the defendants' side, the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and D.W.3 and and marked Exs.B1 to B15. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court documents. (d) The trial Court dismissed the suit as well as the counter claim, however, granted the reliefs in favour of both to the effect that the area situated to the Western wall of the is the common pathway for both plaintiff and the defendants and they should enjoy by putting up a gate at the entrance. (e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the appeal and the defendants filed the cross-appeal. The appellate Court reversed the judgement and decree of the trial Court to the effect that the defendants have no right of ingress and egress into the suit property. However, the appellate Court allowed the aerial projection of the defendants' roof to continue.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgement and decree of the appellate Court, the defendants preferred the second appeal on various grounds, inter alia to the effect that the defendants would be having no opportunity of repairing their Western side wall without entering into the suit property.

5. The following substantial questions of law are found suggested in both the second appeals: "a) Whether in law is not the lower appellate Court wrong in reversing the decree and judgement of the trial Court in the absence of seeking declaration of title. b) Has not the lower appellate Court erred in overlooking that the plainti