S.S. Sundar, J.

The defendants in the suit in O.S.No.1609 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1609 of 2004 for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the right of passage of 20 feet road, more fully, described in the ' B ' Schedule property for her ingress and egress to the property described in the ' A' Schedule. The title to the property which is described as ' A' Schedule is not in dispute. However, the plaintiff claimed that she has got a right to use the said 20 feet road to have access to 'A' Schedule property from the Telegraphic Office road and the O.C.P.M Road in Goripalayam, Madurai, as alleged in the plaint.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that even before the defendants could construct the quarters, the pathway was in existence across the land and after the construction of Police quarters, the pathway became the road for the lay out. Since the plaintiff's case is that she has been using this 20 feet road which runs on eastern side of the property for a long time, she also claimed easementry right by prescription, apart from contending that she is entitled to use the pathway by necessity as there is no other alternative pathway to the plaintiff to have access to the property in 'A' Schedule property.

4. Incidentally, the plaintiff referred to an earlier suit which had filed in O.S.No.715 of 1974 filed by her predecessor-in-title on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, claiming easement of necessity in respect of another property as against the owner thereof. The said suit came to be dismissed only on the ground that the plaintiff has got another pathway, viz., the present 'B' Schedule property and that therefore, she cannot succeed in the suit. It was held in the earlier suit that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest was not entitled to use the pathway therein by way of necessity. The appeal filed by the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest in A.S.No.29 of 1996 was dismissed on 30.09.1980 and thereafter the second appeal filed by the plaintiff's predecessor in title in S.A.No.1273 of 1997 was also dismissed on 30.09.1980.

5. The suit was contested by the appellants mainly on the ground that the 'B' Schedule property belongs to the defendants absolutely and that the plaintiff or her predecessor in interest had no right in respect of 'B' Schedule property, which lies within T.S.No.1069. Since the suit 'B' Schedule property and the surrounding properties having a larger extent in T.S.No.1069, vested with the Police Department as per the proceedings of the Government the appellants contended that the suit 'B' Schedule is their absolute property. After dismantling the existing houses, it was further stated by them that the Government sanctioned 48 Women Police Quarters in T.S.No.1069. Since the Government gave permission to the Police Department to enter upon by proceedings dated 19.12.2003, the claim of the plaintiff that she has got easementary right, was stoutly under dispute. Except disputing the title of the plaintiff in respect of any portion of the 'B' Schedule property, the written statement filed by the second defendant is silent as to the enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff as a pathway to reach her property in 'A' Schedule property.

6. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by taking into consideration the admission of DW.2 regarding the existence of the suit pathway and the enjoyment of the plaintiff as pathway. The lower appellate Court in A.S.No.186 of 2009 also fell in line with the trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants.

8. The defendants have raised the following questions of law in the memorandum of grounds:

"(a) Whether the trial Court is right in decreeing the suit as prayed for?

(b)W