M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) JABAMANI, the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration of easementary right and for mandatory injunction. The trial Court was pleased to dismiss the same. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed the above second appeal.

( 2 ) WHILE the second appeal was admitted, this Court framed the substantial question of law, which is as follows.-"whether the appellate Court is correct in not having considered the contents of Ex. A17 filed before it in the light of the observation made by this Court in its order in A. A. O. No. 567 of 1984 dated 29. 9. 1986?

( 3 ) IN elaboration of this substantial Question of law, mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would vehemently contend that the lower appellate Court has committed a grave illegality in not granting the relief sought for in the suit having held that as per Ex. Al7 the said pathway is a common pathway.

( 4 ) BY way of reply, Mrs. Mala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would just