The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to the right of access to his property as per the partition deed and the willingness of the defendants to allow access.

1. The appellant herein filed a suit as plaintiff in O.S.No.702 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:-

Appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants. Plaintiff and second defendant are brothers, born to Periyasamy Thevar through his second wife, while the first defendant-Kaliyaperumal through his first wife. The plaintiff and the second defendant are sons of Veerammal, who died in the year 1994.

3. It is seen from the plaint filed by the plaintiff that as per the registered partition deed, that took place on 23.07.1966, among the plaintiff and the defendants and Veerammal. The 'C' Schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff and the second defendant jointly. The 'A' Schedule property was allotted to Veerammal and the 'B' Schedule property was allotted to first defendant. The 'C' Schedule property was subsequently divided between the plaintiff and the second defendant. As per the agreement, an extent of 50-2/3 in the southern side was allotted to the plaintiff and 51 cents was allotted to the second defendant, which is on the northern side. The plaintiff was having access through the said property to his land which is on the southern side. But, due to the collusion between the defendants, as they are obstructing the right of access to go to his property from the road, the plaintiff has filed the suit. The properties allotted to the plaintiff and the second defendant are situated immediately on the east of the road. When there was a karaolai arrangment on 27.07.1989, that took place between the plaintiff and the second defendant, as per the said arrangement, the plaintiff was allotted 50 2/3 cents and the second defendant was allotted 51 cents. To the west of 50 2/3 cents , the main road is in existence, from which, the plaintiff is having right of access to his property. Without there being access to the plaintiff to go to his property, he cannot reach the suit place. Therefore, he has filed a suit.

4. A detailed written statement was filed by the first defendant and the same was also adopted by the second defendant. But the first defendant took a stand that he was not a party to that deed, 27.07.1989. Therefore, if any arrangement was made, the same would not bind him. While disputing the correctness of the boundary given in the claim that they are not correct, specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is not having any right, title, interest and possession over the property of the defendant to have access, so as to reach his property. However, para 6 of the written statement mentioned that, without prejudice to the above said contention, the defendant is willing to allow the plaintiff and the second defendant to use the property of the first defendant, that is situated further east of the property of this defendant, only out of courtesy.

5. However, when the matter was taken up before the trial Court, the trial Court, without considering the prayer made by the plaintiff, has held that there is also an alternative pathway on the other side to reach the plaintiff's 'C' Schedule property and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Assailing the said finding, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, by affirming the findings and reasoning given by the trial Court, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, by holding that the plaintiff has already sold away his property to some other person, therefore, he cannot maintain the suit for right of access through defendants' property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-

i) Whether the lower appellate Court erred i