Impugning the Judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, concurring with the Judgment and decree dated 20.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.174 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif at Gobichettipalayam, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal.

2. The suit has been laid for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The first item of the suit properties was allotted to the plaintiff in the partition effected between the plaintiff and the defendants on 26.06.1974 and the plaintiff and the defendants are brothers. The second item of the suit properties was purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants jointly and thereafter, as per the oral partition effected, the parties are in possession and enjoyment in respect of their shares. The plaintiff is residing in the house put up in the second item of the suit properties and as depicted in the plan appended to the plaint, the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest have been using the Cart Track, shown in red colour in the plaint plan, to reach their house and properties and only through the said Cart Track, the plaintiff has been taking Cattle, Tractor, Lorry etc., and other than the said Cart Track pathway, the plaintiff has no other Cart Track to reach his house and properties. Thus the plaintiff has got claim over the Cart Track by way of grant and also exercising the right by way of easement of necessity and other than the Cart Track, there is no other Cart Track either for the plaintiff or for the defendants. The usage of the Cart Track by the plaintiff should not be obstructed by the defendants. While so, on account of enmity, the defendants have been interfering with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the common well and accordingly, the plaintiff preferred a complaint against the defendants that they are interfering with his enjoyment of the common well unlawfully and keeping the same in mind, the defendants have been unlawfully making attempts to obstruct the usage of the common Cart Track by the plaintiff to reach his house and properties. The defendants are not entitled to do so. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the defendants in brief are as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no connection whatsoever between the first item and the second item of the suit properties. The first item of the suit properties belonged to the parties ancestrally and as per the partition effected in the year 1974, the parties are enjoying their respective shares in the first item of the suit properties. There is no Cart Track as shown in the plaint plan. It is false to state that the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest have been using the Cart Track to reach their house and properties by taking cattle, tractor, lorry etc., and it is false to state that the plaintiff is entitled to use Cart Track by way of grant and also entitled to use the same as easement of necessity and it is false to state that other than the suit Cart Track, there is no other Cart Track for the usage of the plaintiff to reach his house and the properties. The parties are using only the Cart Track as given in the partition deed of the year 1974, other than the same, there is no other Cart Track as alleged by the plaintiff. It is false to state that after the purchase of the second item of the suit properties, the plaintiff and the defendants have been using the Cart Track to reach their respective properties. The plaintiff has not impleaded the owner of the properties adjacent to the suit properties and on that ground alone, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Further, the plaintiff has also not included all the properties shown in the plaint plan. It is false to state that the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's usage of common well and that, the plaintiff preferred a police c