Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiffs against the judgement and decree dated 27.08.2010 made in A.S.No.10/2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Rasipuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 made in O.S.No.56/2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram.

2. The suit has been laid for permanent injunction.

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

The suit property is a Village Natham land and it was purchased by one Sengoda Achari on 27.09.1941. The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the daughter of S. Kandasamy and S. Kandasamy is the son of Sengoda Achari and as such, after the demise of Sengoda Achari and S. Kandasamy, the suit property was inherited by the plaintiffs and patta was also granted to the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying necessary taxes, electricity charges, etc. As depicted in the plaint plan, there is a 16' pathway running south to North, on the east of the suit property and the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest have been enjoying the above said common pathway to reach the suit property and the existence of common pathway is also shown in the title deeds. The common pathway is used by the plaintiffs and others to reach their respective properties. While so, the defendants unlawfully attempted to encroach into the common pathway and annex with their properties and also, obstructed the use of the common pathway by the plaintiffs and others. Hence, the plaintiffs have been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction.

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

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest Sengoda Achari under the sale deed dated 27.09.1941 and thereafter, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by receiving patta and paying house tax and electricity charges etc., The plaint plan is not correct. It is false to state that the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest have been using the 16' pathway to reach their properties and for taking Cart, Vehicle, etc., from time immemorial. There is no such pathway existing on land. It is false to state that there is a common pathway of 16' that too to the east of the plaintiffs' property. The boundary recitals mentioned in the title deed of the plaintiffs is false. There is no mention of the pathway in the patta given to the plaintiffs. The property owned by the second defendant under the sale deed dated 03.02.2006 was allotted to Palanisamy Gounder under the partition deed dated 11.12.1972 and in that partition deed, it has been correctly mentioned that the properties allotted to Palanisamy Gounder are situated to the East of Appavu's house. The above said properties were purchased by Manickam under two sale deeds dated 13.03.2003 and in the said sale deeds, the first plaintiff's house and one Dhanam's house have been shown as the western boundary. The property situated to the west of the second defendant and to the South of the plaintiffs, was originally owned by Dhanalakshi and her son Sivakumar under the exchange deed dated 27.09.1995 and the said property was sold to Manickam by them on 11.06.2003 and in the said sale deed also, it has been recited as situated to the West of lands owned by Palanisamy Gounder. Therefore, from the above said documents of title, it is evident that there is no pathway running to a width of 16' on the Eastern side of the suit property as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants have put up compound wall with hollow Bricks in between their properties and the plaintiffs' property to a height of 4' and the same has been in existence for more than 40 years. The plaintiffs, suppressing the true facts, have instituted the suit with false particulars, as if the pathway i