The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the reversing judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court.

2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is the appellant herein and the defendants are the respondents herein.

(ii) The suit properties originally belonged to one Narayanasamy , son of Rangasamy at Melakuppam village Hamlet of Ammeri village, which was sold under Ex.A.1, the registered sale deed dated 19.8.1991 in favour of the plaintiff by appointing his grandfather Krishnasamy as guardian for proper and valuable consideration of Rs.11,800/- and from the date of such sale, the said Krishnasamy has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by putting a little shed, string hay rick and manure, on behalf of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is having right, title and interest over the suit properties.

(iii) It was further submitted that the defendants, who are having house and vacant site on the Southern side of the suit properties, having failed in their attempt to purchase the suit properties from the vendor of the plaintiff developed strong enmity towards the plaintiff and attempted to trespass into the suit properties from 29.10.1993. Since the defendants are highly influential persons in that locality, apprehending their highly illegal and unlawful acts, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title of the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff also made an alternative prayer to put him into the possession of the suit properties through proper order, if the Court comes to the conclusion that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants have trespassed into the suit properties.

(iv) Opposing the said prayer, the first defendant/first respondent herein filed a detailed written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant/second respondent herein.

(v) The defendants have denied all the allegations stated in the plaint. They further stated that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors have any right or title over the suit properties. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendor has right over the first item of the suit properties, which is the street.

(vi) The second item of the suit properties originally belonged to the vendor of the plaintiff Narayanasamy and his father Rengasamy. They sold the second item of the suit properties on 12.10.1996 under Ex.B.2 dated 12.10.1996 in favour of one Muthusamy Padayachi. Again, when the said Narayansamy obtained the same suit properties under sale deed Ex.A.2 dated 20.9.1967, there was no mention about the first item of the suit properties in the said sale deed. It makes it clear that the said Narayanasamy is not entitled to have any right over the first item of the suit properties. Moreover, it is mentioned that the first item of the suit properties is described as a street in the F.M.B. Plan Ex.B.7. The defendants, since there is no way to reach their house and garden, are using the first item of the suit properties, the street for more than 50 years and hence, they are entitled to use the said property by easementary right. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to ask for declaration, hence, it is pleaded, the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed.

(vii) On hearing both sides, the trial Court partly allowed the suit. As against the same, when an appeal was preferred before the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.S.Nandivarman, learned counsel for Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Mrs.S.T.P.Kuilmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. At the t