Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

2. The plaint averments made by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court are as follows:-

The suit item-1 property originally belonged to one Pachamuthu Konar and his son Sellaperumal Konar. They had transferred their right in the suit property, under a registered document dated 02.05.1978 for a valuable sale consideration, to these plaintiffs, appointing their mother Thulasiammal as their guardian, since the plaintiffs were minor at that time and had given possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. From the date of purchase, Thulasiammal was in possession of the suit property and after attaining majority, the plaintiffs took possession by paying tax to the houses in the suit property. The plaintiffs and their vendors are in adverse possession of the suit property, since they are in continuous and uninterruped possession for long years. Suit item-2 property situates on the south side of item-1 property, which is the only access from Pennadam Ayyanar Kovil Street to the houses in the suit item-1 property. Since the predecessors and the plaintiffs have used item-2 property as pathway and cart track etc., for more than 40 years, the plaintiffs are entitled to necessary easement. After the purchase of the suit item-1, the mother of the plaintiffs had put up a compound wall of 6 feet height over BCD portion mentioned in the plaint plan. On 01.07.1994, the first defendant along with defendants 2 and 3 is attempting to put up construction in the suit item-2 property. If the defendants are allowed to do so, irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration of possessory right over the suit item-2 property and permanent injunction.

3. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants are as follows:-

These defendants claimed no right or possession over the suit item-1 property. Suit item-2 property never belonged to the plaintiffs and they have not used the same as pathway and they were not in possession of the same at any point of time. The boundaries given to the suit properties are wrong. The houses of Kuppayi, Ayisha Bi/3rd defendant and Kaveri Ammal are existed in between the suit item-1 property and the street. From the beginning, the plaintiffs used Semberi Salai as pathway and not the Ayyanar Koil Street and the said street came into existence after the vendors of Ayisha Bi, Kuppayi and Kaveri Ammal constructed their houses. There is no plot belonged to Jihiran, as stated in the plaint plan. On the western side of Kaveri Ammal's house, third defendant's plot lies, which was for the past 25 years in possession of one Kamatchi Ammal and in that plot Kamatchi Ammal put up a thatched hut with entrance on the eastern side. There is 15' gap in between the houses of Kamatchi Ammal and Kaveri Ammal. After the said hut was dilapidated, Kamatchi Ammal handed over possession of the said plot to Ayisha Bi on 08.12.1993. Therefore, the plaintiffs created problem with the 3rd defendant/Ayisha Bi and made encroachments on the property of the 3rd defendant. As per the order of the Block Development Officer dated 03.03.1994, the aforesaid encroachments were removed and vacant possession was handed over to the third defendant. Due to the same, the plaintiffs have filed this suit with a motive to prevent the third defendant from putting up construction in the plot purchased from Kamatchi Ammal and get interim injunction. The plaintiffs have no possessory and easementary right over the suit property . Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On consideration of the above pleadings, the Trial Judge framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

ii)