Order dismissing the suit for casementary right upheld.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below has preferred the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1999 in A.S.28 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.1.1999 in O.S.No.1048 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif.

2. Thecase in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of declaration of easementary right owner the suit property and for permanent injunction against the defendant and his men from in any manner interfering with his right. The plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.97/3B, 97/5A1, 5A2, 5B1 and 98. The defendants are the owners of the land bearing S.Nos.97/2A, 97/SB, 97/3A and 97/7A. The plaintiffs house is situated in S.No.97/7A. The main road connecting Thurinjapuram and Vadakarumbalur is running East to west and North of S.No.97/2A. This road is in S.No.97/1. It is a public road. Thee is also a well laid road from the public road running towards south for reaching the houses of the plaintiff as well as the defendant and others. The suit road is in existence from time immemorial running through S.Nos.97/2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 and it is marked as red colour in the plaint plan. This road runs to the entire length of the above said survey numbers with a breadth of about 17 ft. east to west. They are using the road for more than the statutory period and acquired the right of casement of way. There is no other way to reach the house of the plaintiff as well as his lands. The plaintiff has been using this road for transporting his agricultural produce, to take his cattles and to reach his house. Similarly, the defendant as well as Ellammal are also using the suit road. Recently dispute arose between the parties reading survey No.97/3B and the plaintiff obtained in injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit property. The defendant attempted to abstract the plaintiffs from using the suit road by putting stones at the entrance of the road. But the defendants have no right whatsoever and hence the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the S.No.97/3B and it is belonging to the defendant. He got the same under a registered partition deed dated 17.8.1977 between himself and his brother as well as their father. The suit survey number was purchased by his father Ranga Reddiar from one Visalakshmi Ammal, Gurunathan and Seethurman and others under a registered sale deed dated 2.9.1957. there were two suits in respect of suit survey numbers in O.S.Nos.1026 of 1992 and 41 of 1993. According to them there was no well laid road from the public road running towards south for reaching the house of the plaintiff as well as others. The defendant denied the existence of any such road and one of the parties used the same as road. As the plaintiff had not acquired right of the easement of way. S.No.97/2A, 2B, 3A and 3B slope from east to west and it is higher in level on the eastern side by about 2ft. Only dry crops were raised all these years and towards the end of 1992, the defendant wanted to raise wet crops by leveling the aid lands and for which he levelled the lands and wanted to keep the same height all round in the said S.Nos. for which the defendants started leveling from the west and proceeded towards fast and he noticed big boulders of rock and he blasted the same and removed the mud boulders and rock and arranged them towards the eastern boundary in the alleged pathway. When the defendant came near the red portion the plaintiff had stopped and prevented him from leveling the land and pushed the rocks and bounders towards the extreme east. The defendant also filed a suit and obtained an order of interim injunction. In fact the defendant sold about 40 lorry loads of the boulders and rocks removed the said area and there were still 20 lorry loads of rocks and boulders removed from the said l