The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering material evidence and appreciating the evidence on record in reaching a decision.

1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2001 in A.S.No.112 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Mettur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1998 in O.S.No.81 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:

Molaya Gounder was the owner of the properties in S.Nos.32/2 and 32/4. He had two sons, namely Kullavedi and Vedi; Kullavedi is the father of the first plaintiff and grandfather of the second plaintiff. Kullavedi and Vedi have partitioned the properties. The properties in S.No.32/2 and S.No.32/4 fell into the share of Kullavedi; the property in S.No.32/3A and another land fell into the share of Vedi. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of S.Nos.32/2 and 32/4; the first plaintiffs paternal junior uncle is Vedi and the said Vedis sons are Palaniappan, Molaya Gounder, Subramanian, Arumugam and Nagappan and they sold the share of property in S.No.32/3A and another portion to the first defendant in 1962, from the date of oral partition, Kulla Vedi and Vedi used all the mamool way at the field; subsequent to the oral partition, there was a road earmarked in the breath 10 feet x length 100 feet, in the land of Vedi in S.No.32/3A, which is the only way to the plaintiffs to reach their lands in S.No.32/4 and the Panchayat Road. The plaintiffs were using the suit way without any hindrance and disturbance. On 12.2.1993 night, the defendants henchmen destroyed their way and prevented them from going through the way. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs right of way across the land in S.No.32/3A of Kolnayaganpatti Village, belongs to them and also for mandatory injunction to restore the suit pathway; and also for payment of costs and accordingly prayed for a decree.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the other defendants, are as follows:

There is no such pathway in existence in the name of cart track to the extent of 10 feet breath x 100 feet length. The plaintiffs must establish the existence of the suit property, i.e. cart-way. The first defendant purchased the property bearing S.No.32/3A from his vendor Vedi and the first defendant earmarked his purchased property with boundaries. There was no easementary right at the time of purchase, either in favour of the plaintiffs or anyone else. There is no such road in existence on the date of purchase in 1962 in S.No.32/3A. On the western side of the plaintiffs lands, there is a well-beaten road for the plaintiffs to reach another field. There is also another road which is on the northern side of the plaintiffs lands, which runs east to west and after the defendants lands, it takes diversion on the southern side and reach the plaintiffs another land. When the first defendant purchased the property form his vendor Vedi, there was no joint family status between the first defendants vendor Vedi and the first plaintiffs father Kulla Vedi. In fact, D1 has been enjoying 1.19 cents as absolute property and has also been enjoying 10 cents adjoining to S.No.32/3A. In 1985, when the updating of patta scheme was introduced, D1 obtained patta for 10 cents in his favour. There is no cart-track in existence on 12.2.1993 and by long enjoyment of the entire lands in S.No.32/3A, the defendants family perfected their rights, including the alleged road. After the purchase by the defendants, the lands in S.No.32/3A , neither the plaintiffs nor anybody else were enjoying any right in S.No.32/3A and so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to ask for the relief of declaration and injunction; there is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the defendants pray for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and in the written statement, framed necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary eviden