The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear and consistent claim of easement by necessity, supported by legal evidence, and the importance of pleadings and issues in defining the scope of litigation.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2001 and made in A.S. No. 63 of 2000 on the file on the Learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani reversing the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2000 and made in O. S. No 161 of 1997, the Plaintiff has approached this court by way of this Second Appeal.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the parties to the Apex are detailed as under:

The Suit is instituted by the Plaintiff as against the Defendant.

1. To declare the Plaintiff’s easement right over the suit property

2. To grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant his men, agents assignees etc., from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the Suit cart track.

3. Out of the total extent of 2.89 acres of his ancestral property comprised in S.F. No. 41/A of Ennamaugalam Village, the Plaintiff got 1.44 ½ cents on the northern portion, of which, the Plaintiff and his minor son had sold an extent of 0.72 ½ cents to one Siddha Gounder, son of Makkapalani Gounder on 14.11.1972 only in common without having boundaries. Even prior or after the above sale, the Plaintiff had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property only on convenient sake and not by any regular partition. After the death of Siddhappa Gounder his legal representation viz., Iyyasamy and Murugesan and the Plaintiff had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares by providing cart track to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has been using the Suit Cart till now.

4. The said Iyyasamy and Murugesan had sold their shares in the suit common survey land to the defendant on 26.2.1997 with specific boundaries without mentioning the existence of the Suit cart track. The Plaintiff is having only this cart track to have access to his land and excepting this one, no other alternative through the Defendant’s land.

5. When the Plaintiff was carrying manures by a cart to his land, the defendant without having any valid reason was trying to disturb the plaintiff’s user of the Suit cart track. The Plaintiff has been using the cart track from the north south roads, to reach his land. Hence the Plaintiff was constrained to filed this suit for declaring his easementary right over the cart track and also for permanent injunction.

6. The Defendant has contended that he and his vendors had/have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property adjoining to north south road and the Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to the east of the property enjoyed by the Defendant and his vendors. There was no cart track existing as alleged by the Plaintiff. The Commissioner’s Report and plan depict the real physical features of the suit vendors of the Defendant and the Plaintiff had orally partitioned their properties comprised in old S.F. No. 41. A of Ennamangalam village in the month of April 1973 itself, and in the said partition, the western portion was allotted to the father of the vendors. The vendors of the Defendant had sold their properties to the Defendant on 26.11.1997 with all defined boundaries after the demise of their father. Hence, the Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of his property. The suit is filed vexatiously as if east west cart track is in existence.

7. In his additional Written Statement, the Defendant has added that the pleadings and the prayer of the Plaint are contrary and are not in consonance with the provisions of law. There is no vinculum juris in the Suit and as such it is not maintainable. No Suit cart track, is in existence as alleged by the Plaintiff in the land of the Defendant. The land of this Defendant which is comprised in R.S. No. 660/1 and 660/3 of Ennamangalam Village is Manvari land. If really the alleged suit cart track was in existence and enjoyed by the Plaintiff, the length of the alleged suit cart track could have been given by the Plaintiff.

8. Based on the pleadings of the parties to the Suit, the Trail Court has formulated three issue