The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of easement by necessity and easement by prescription in property disputes.

The appellant herein, who was successful before the Trial Court, is before this Court by way of this Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment of reversal passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. Since the issue involved in both the Appeals is one and the same, the Appeals are taken up for disposal by a common judgment.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The case of the appellant/Perumal before the Trial Court is that the property in 'A' schedule is his absolute property, purchased by him under a registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1987 from one Kishta Pillai, S/o. Narayana Pillai for Rs.2,400/- and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said property is situated on the eastern side of the respondent's house and the way to the property is described in 'E' schedule. Kishta Pillai was in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property. According to the appellant/Perumal, he is in enjoyment of the right of way over 'B' schedule property to reach his property in 'A' schedule and he reaches his house in 'A' schedule property from the western side only through the way described in 'B' schedule. So also, the respondent/Ganesan has access to his house on the western side of the appellant's house in 'A' schedule only through the way described in 'B' schedule.

4. It is the further case of the appellant/Perumal that the respondent/Ganesan purchased the site on the western side of the house from one Ponnusami Gounder and Ramalingam and he did not have direct access from west street to his house, lying immediately on the east of west street and west of his house. According to him, he and the respondent and their predecessors in title have enjoyed the 'B' schedule property as a way from time immemorial and that he has access only through the way described in 'B' schedule and hence, the right of way is absolutely necessary and essential for the beneficial enjoyment of his house in 'A' schedule.

5. Before the Trial Court, the appellant/Perumal has further stated that he constructed a house in S.No.200/1 in west street and is using 'A' schedule property as a cattle shed and that the thatched house in 'A' schedule property is assessed to property tax. Also, the appellant used to lead his cattle to and from the 'A' schedule property only through the way in 'B' schedule. Moreover, the respondent also used the said way to reach his house from west street and hence, he is estopped to deny the existence of the said way and also his right to use the same to reach his house in 'A' schedule.

6. Thereafter, the Natham Survey authorities surveyed the house sites in the suit Village. The respondent's site and house have been resurveyed as S.No.200/13 and the appellant's house has been resurveyed as S.No.200/14. The 'B' schedule property, i.e. the way has been resurveyed as 200/15. The appellant has been granted house site patta in respect of S.No.200/14 and the Patta Number is 75. The appellant as well as the respondent were served notices of Natham Survey. The Surveyor fixed boundaries for the properties of the appellant and the respondent and also the way described in 'B' schedule. The respondent did not question fixation of boundaries of the same and so, the decision of the Surveyor has become final and conclusive. Thus, according to the appellant, the respondent is barred by resjudicata to dispute the appellant's right to use the way in S.No.200/15, morefully described in 'B' schedule. Hence, the appellant/Perumal filed a suit in O.S.No.368 of 1999 seeking declaration of his right of way over 'B' schedule property to reach his house in 'A' schedule property from the west street and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/Ganesan from interfering with his enjoyment of 'B' schedule property as a way to reach his house in 'A' schedule property from west street.

7. While so, the respondent/Ganesan filed a suit in O.S.No.348 of 1999 seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant/Perumal from us