The central legal point established in the judgment is the plaintiff's entitlement to seek permanent injunction against the defendants based on her established usage of the land as a cart track and the absence of an alternative cart track, in accordance with the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

1. These second appeals are directed against the Judgment and decree dated 06.04.2000 made in A.S.Nos.50 & 51 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1998 made in O.S.No.13 of 1997 & 402 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. O.S.No.402 of 1996 is laid for permanent injunction

4. O.S.No.13 of 1997 is laid for permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, i.e. Respondents in the second appeals, in both suits is that the plaintiff Radhamani is entitled to 30 cents situated in Survey No.588/1 as per the settlement deed dated 24.10.1989 and pursuant to the same, she has erected power loom, godown and residential house in the above said property and enjoying the same and the plaintiff is having Cart Track right over the suit property for reaching the above said property from Karattupalayam road and other than the suit cart track, the plaintiff is having no other way for having access to her property and the plaintiff and her predecessor interest had been enjoying the suit cart track more than 50 years and the defendants are not entitled to prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the suit cart track and on account of the previous enmity, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's right and enjoyment of the suit Cart Track and hence, the plaintiff Radhamani has been forced to lay the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.402 of 1996 and the same plea was also taken by her and her husband K.P. Kandasamy in the written pleas preferred in O.S.No.13 of 1997.

6. The case of the defendants/appellants in the second appeals, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff Radhamani is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is false to state that the suit property has been used as the Cart Track by the plaintiff for having access to her property from Karattupalayam road and the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the alternative cart track situated to the eastern and northern side of the temple and the above said cart track is only used by the plaintiff for reaching her property and there is no cart track as such in the suit property and the case of the plaintiff that she and her predecessor in title had been using the suit cart track for more than 50 years is false and that the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants attempted to interfere with her right to use the cart track is also false. According to the defendants, the suit property has been used during the temple festival season for litting pyre, preparing food, etc., and other than the said purpose, the suit property is not used for any other purpose, particularly, for cart track as pleaded by the plaintiff and the plaintiff, under the guise of her suit, is preventing the defendants from using the suit property during festival occasions and hence, the defendants had been necessitated to lay the suit for claiming the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff Radhamani and her husband in O.S.No.13 of 1997 and hence, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and the decreeing of the suit laid by them.

7. Both the suits were jointly tried and accordingly, common evidence has been recorded in O.S.No.402 of 1996.

8. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs1 to 3 were examined and no document has been marked. Exs.C1 to 7 were also marked.

9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to decree the suit laid by the plaintiff in O.S.No.402/96 and dismiss the suit laid by the defendants in O.S.No.13/1997. Aggrieved over the same, the second appeals have been preferred respectively.

10. At the time of the admission of the second appeals, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consi