The judgment established the principle that a claim for exclusive right of pathway through a passage does not amount to claiming ownership, and open and uninterrupted use of a pathway for a statutory period can establish easementary right by prescription.

1. This Second Appeal is filed the at the instance of the legal heirs of the Plaintiff in OS.No.3684/1999, who died after passing of the decree by the Trial Court and has been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether the prayer in the suit for a declaration "that the Plaintiff has got the absolute right of access and use of the passage" will amount to claiming any title over the passage so as to defeat the right of easement claimed by the Plaintiff under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 read with Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

(b) Has not the lower Appellate Court given a totally perverse judgement in reversing the judgement of the Trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced regarding the easementary right claimed by the Plaintiff?

2. The above said suit was instituted by the Plaintiff/mother of the Appellants herein for declaration that the Plaintiff has got the absolute right of access and use of the passage starting from Kalingarayan Street, Chennai-21 and going straight upto the building at Door No.9, Kalingarayan 1st lane, Chennai-21 marked as ABCD in the plaint plan and for injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the said passage.

3. The case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:-

a. The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the site and building bearing Old Door No.12 and present Door No.9, Kalingarayan First Lane (formerly Kalingarayan Mudali First lane) by virtue of a settlement deed executed in her favour by her father V.Ayyavu Nadar on 9.8.1965. In the said building, the sons of the Plaintiff namely P.J.Ponnappan and P.J.Cheraman are running a business by name Dravida Nadu Drugs and Pharmaceuticals as partners. The said property is on the rear western side of the house bearing Door No.20, Kalingarayan Street belongs to the Defendant, who is the brother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant has got the said house and site under a will executed by his father. There is a passage marked as ABCD in the plan on the northern side of the premises of the Defendant and it extends upto the premises at Door No.9, Kalingarayan 1st lane and it measures 5 feet in breadth and 56 feet in length and the said passage is the main entrance from Kalingarayan Street to the premises of the Plaintiff and it is the only way to reach the premises of the Plaintiff. Since Kalingarayan 1st lane was a very narrow lane, for the purpose of having the main entrance from the big street namely Kalingarayan Street, the settlor provided the said passage and it was meant exclusively only for the use of the owner of the property at Door NO.9, Kalingarayan 1st lane and it is being used by the Plaintiff exclusively.

b. There is a gate put up at the entrance point in Kalingarayan Street in the suit passage by the Plaintiff and it is in existence from 1940 till date. Water connection for the property of the Plaintiff is in existence and use ever since the settlement in 1965 through the passage. The Plaintiff has acquired by prescription the exclusive right to the passage marked as ABCD in the plaint plan as per Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The Defendant has not raised any objection whatsoever right from 1940 till 1998 for the exclusive use of the passage by the Plaintiff. For the first time, on 14.12.98 the Defendant wrote a letter to the officers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and to the said Company stating that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Door No.20, Kalingarayan Street and that the Plaintiff has no right to use the suit passage in his property. The objection of the Defendant was that the said Company should not install a generator in the suit passage. However, by a reply dated 28.1.99, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that generator was never sought to be installed in the suit passage and in fact, the generator had been installed in a room which is on