T. Ravindran, J.

The plaintiff in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2010 made in A.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2008 made in O.S.No.977 of 2008 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal.

(a) Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated in that it has given a finding about the right of access to the appellant's property, which was not in issue before the trial Court?

(b) Whether the lower Appellate Court has misinterpreted to hold, that the third respondent has a right of way over the suit property because it has been mentioned in Ex.B4, whereas no anterior documents of title to prove how such access was provided, have been filed?

4. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants, without authority of law, had interfered in his possession and enjoyment of the lane situated to the west of his property and the east of the defendants' property. Now, according to the plaintiff, he has purchased his property under the registered sale deed dated 15.03.1961 and the same has been marked as Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1 would go to show that there is nothing contained therein to hold that the lane situated on the western side had also been conveyed to the plaintiff by his vendors. On the other hand, it could be seen that the vendors had retained the usage of the lane to themselves and the other sharers for having access to their respective properties. Therefore, it could be seen that the case of the plaintiff that he had acquired the right to use the suit lane under Ex.A1 as such cannot be accepted in any manner.

5. That apart, the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint as to what right, he has claimed over the suit lane, whether he is claiming right by way of easement by grant or easement of necessity or easement by prescription. All that he would state that is that the defendants should not prevent his enjoyment of the suit lane and therefore, he is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction sought for.

6. As rightly argued by the counsel for the respondents, the plaintiff has also not established that his predecessor in interest had right over the suit lane for the enjoyment of the property covered under Ex.A1. The parent documents to Ex.A1 have not been filed. On the other hand, as adverted to earlier, the vendors in Ex.A1 had retained the usage of the suit lane to themselves and the other sharers for having access to reach their respective properties. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff that he had been conveyed right to use the suit lane under Ex.A1 cannot be accepted in any manner.

7. The defendants in the written statement have specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the suit lane. According to the defendants, the suit lane is intended and meant only for the usage of the owners of the properties situated in survey Nos.79/13, 79/14A, B, C, D and 79/15. Now, according to the defendants, they had purchased their properties situated in survey Nos.79/14B and 79/14D under the sale deed dated 28.04.2005 along with the easementary right over the suit lane. Further, according to them, they had purchased the property in Survey Nos.79/13 and 79/15 under document Nos.1271/89 and 1168/90 respectively. In other words, according to the defendants, the suit lane is reserved exclusively for their use and not to the use of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right whatsoever over the suit lane.

8. In this connection, a perusal of Ex.B4, the sale deed dated 28.04.2005, it could be seen that the defendants have also acquired the right over the suit lane for the purpose of having access to reach their resp