T. Ravindran, J.

The plaintiffs, in this second appeal, have impugned the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2010 made in A.S. No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudy, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009 made in O.S. No.78 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthurai Poondi.

2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The suit property is situated in Town Survey No.228/7, 63 cents of Kuttai Porampokku and out of the same, 4 cents on the northern bund of the Kuttai, East-West measuring 49 meters and north-south measuring 11 meters within the specific boundaries.

4. The plaintiffs claim right of easement by prescription over the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, they had been using the suit property as a pathway from 1959 onwards for having access to Uppukulam street and the same had been in the continuous enjoyment of the plaintiffs for several years and accordingly, the plaintiffs have also planted coconut, lime trees in the suit property and enjoying the usufructary right of the same and further, the plaintiffs have also planted bamboo clusters at the intersection of the property belonging to the plaintiffs situated in Survey No.228/6A and the suit survey No.228/7 and been enjoying the bamboo clusters as such and inasmuch as the Kuttai Porambokku has been surrounded on all sides by patta lands and according to them, other than the suit property i.e. 4 cents northern bund of the Kuttai, there is no other access for the plaintiffs to reach Uppukulam street and inasmuch as the defendants, particularly, the second defendant had attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the pathway in the suit property by engaging an operation of annexing the pathway in the suit property along with the Kuttai, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. Per contra, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs cannot claim or lay any right over the suit property, which is admittedly Kuttai Porambakku belonging to the Government and no one including the plaintiffs are entitled to claim ownership over the Kuttai Poramboku property or use the same as pathway and the defendants have also pleaded that the case of the plaintiffs that they had been using the suit property as a pathway for several years and thereby, prescribed thereon the easementary right by prescription over the same, is false. No such right is derived by the plaintiffs over the suit pathway and further according to the defendants, inasmuch as the plaintiffs, without any authority, had also put up construction on the suit property illegally, they had issued a notice to the plaintiffs to remove the encroachment made by them and according to the defendants, with a view to obstruct the defendants from removing the encroachment put up by the plaintiffs in the suit property, the suit has been falsely laid.

6. It is admitted that the suit property is a Kuttai Porambokku belonging to the Government. Now, according to the plaintiffs, they do not claim any ownership right over the suit property as such and on the other hand, they claim only easementary right over the suit property and according to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as they had been using the suit property as a pathway for having access to Uppukulam street from their house property from 1959 onwards, thus according to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to claim easementary right over the suit property by prescription and hence, the suit.

7. The plaintiffs, in order to establish that they had been using the suit property as a pathway, had relied upon the documentary evidence produced during the course of trial. In this connection, it is found that almost all the documents, barring a few, would not be relevant for determining the issue whether the plaintiffs have prescribed easmentary right over the suit property by prescription. As regards the so called relevant docume