The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ascertaining the physical features of the suit pathway and the appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the property, as emphasized by Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 07.11.2008, passed in A.S.No.6 of 2008, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.08.2007, passed in O.S.No.375 of 2004, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Virudhunagar.

2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit, in O.S.No.375 of 2004, on the file of District Munsif, Virudhunagar, against the respondents/defendants, seeking declaration with respect to right of pathway, alleging that it has been acquired by virtue of succession, which accrued to him at a partition and he has been in enjoyment of the same, however, the respondents/defendants are interfering with his using of the pathway.

3. The first respondent/first defendant filed written statement resisting the suit making several allegations. The subsistence of it is that the plaintiff has no such right over the suit pathway.

4. The second respondent/second defendant filed written statement taking a stand midway, as between the plaintiff and the first defendant. He would say that there is a way, but it is a common way.

5. With this divergent pleas, after framing of the necessary issues, parties went for an hot contest before the Trial Court. Voluminous oral and documentary evidence have been let in. The Trial Court scanned the materials. Ultimately, operation success, but patient died. The suit has been dismissed blaming the plaintiff for not having brought to the notice of the Court clearly the very existence of the suit pathway.

6. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has been driven to go before the Appellate Court/Sub Court, Virudhunagar, in A.S.No.6 of 2008.

7. In the wake of result of the legal battle before the District Munsif, Virudhunagar, the plaintiff had sharpened his mind. Perhaps, he realized his folly in not having taken out an application in the Trial Court for bringing the physical structure of the suit property to the notice of the Court and he was let to believe that had he taken such a step, the course of litigation in the Trial Court would have been different.

8. Rightly, he filed a petition in I.A. No. 33 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner. But, it's life span was very short in the said appellate Court. It had it's death, but not after a full fledge fight, in other words, it was closed.

9. In this connection, the learned counsel for the first respondent would read the few lines snatched from the mouth of P.W.1, during his cross-examination, which are to the effect that as he was so certain that he will succeed on his title deed, did not avail of the opportunity of appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner.

10. Perhaps, the second respondent, since taken the plea that it is a common pathway, if it is held to be a common pathway, it will also enure to his benefit, did not play much role, except watching the fierce legal battle between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

11. Keeping aside the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the first defendant, if we peruse the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, like the Trial Court, it had also found fault with the plaintiff in having not sought for appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner. It is evident from para No.13 of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court. Infact, it is as against the reality of the situation, because actually plaintiff had filed an application for Advocate/Commissioner in the first appellate Court.

12. Courts are intended to do complete justice. Parties are coming to the Court when they have fight/lis, if they have no fight, they have no business to come to Court. When there are controversies, they were exposed by way of pleadings, namely, plaint and written statement and so on. A clear reading and understanding of the pleadings will give an idea as to the scope of the controversy and as to the grey areas, which are to be uncovered, with the help of the arguments of the counsel and evidence on record.

13. Parties com