S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.18 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1999 for declaration that the plaintiff Bank has a common right of way over the suit property for the free ingress and egress and for consequential innunction, restraining the respondents herein in any manner interfering with the right of way.

3. The case of the appellant as has been read from the plaint, are as follows:

3.1. The suit property has been classified as Zari Natham in the Government records and it belongs to one Murugaiah Pillai. The said Murugaiah Pillai purchased the property under registered Sale Deed dated 30.01.1943. Subsequently, the said Murugaiah Pillai entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff's bank in respect of 8 cents of vacant land with a common right of way from its west. Since the said Murugaiah Pillai failed to execute the Sale Deed, the plaintiff Bank filed a suit for specific performance against the said Murugaiah Pillai, in O.S.No.253 of 1964 before the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, and obtained a decree. In execution of the said decree for specific performance, the plaintiff bank also obtained the sale deed dated 02.09.1969 from the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.

3.2. As per the Sale Deed executed by the Court, the plaintiff was given right not only in respect of 8 cents of land, but also to the pathway which was specifically referred to in the Sale Deed as second item of the Sale Deed. The plaintiff is in enjoyment of the common pathway which is in existence as a pathway measuring 120 links East-West and 12 links North-South.

3.3. Since the defendants who have no right to prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the pathway right, made an attempt to obstruct the plaintiff's enjoyment over the suit pathway, it was contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

3.4. The suit was contested by the defendants by denying the averments in the plaint. According to the defendants, they are in enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants who are residing on the western side of the suit property, claimed title to the suit property as an absolute owner. The trial Court decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the right of easement is proved by the plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deed executed by the Court in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff relied upon the decree in the suit for specific performance and the subsequent Sale Deed obtained from the judgment-debtor in the previous suit, the trial Court has not considered the documents produced by the defendants to prove their exclusive title in the various proceedings in relation to the suit property as to its existence and enjoyment by defendants.

3.5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2013.

3.6. The lower appellate Court considered each and every document produced by the defendants and after analysing the documents in the light of the pleadings and oral evidence reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court found that without any parental documents, the Sale Deed, executed under Ex.A1 cannot be accepted. Since the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 which is only indicative of a wrongful title, is not entitled to any right of easement. The lower appellate Court also considered the factual and legal issues and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established the existence of pathway and that there is no right of easement for the plaintiff.

3.7. Aggrieved against the judgment of the appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal before this Court by raising the following questions of law:

"(a)Whether any prior document is necessary to prove the right of easement within the meaning of Easements Act, 1882?

(b) Whether the recitals in a document of 30 years of old raises the pre