1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2003 passed in A.S.No.49 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.124 of 2002 on the file of the Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

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

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that Gopal Reddiar and others owned totally an extent of 14.71 acres of land in various survey numbers and accordingly, they had acquired the right over the ABC cart track as described in the plaint plan for having access to the abovesaid properties by way of a sale deed dated 12.09.1960 and Gopal Reddiar and others, by way of a sale deed dated 20.06.1968, had sold the eastern half in R.S.No.338 to the defendants and accordingly, granted the defendants the way of right over the ABC cart track as abovestated under the said sale deed and Gopal Reddiar had retained the exclusive right to use the abovesaid cart track to reach their lands and also for taking cart, cattle etc., and by way of the sale deed dated 20.06.1968, the defendants had been granted only the right of way over the said cart track and not any exclusive right and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to claim any title over the ABC cart track and subsequently, Gopal Reddiar and others had sold the extent of lands owned by them by way of sale deeds dated 23.08.1974 in favour of the plaintiff and his mother Palaniammal and in turn Palaniammal had settled the properties acquired by her under the abovesaid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by way of a settlement deed dated 06.09.1975 and accordingly, the plaintiff had acquired the absolute right over the ABC cart track and in that capacity, the plaintiff had also laid pipe underneath the abovesaid cart track for the purpose of taking water to irrigate the lands from the Well owned by him and the defendants had been granted only easementary right of usage over the ABC cart track and contrary to the said right, the defendants made attempts to lay underneath pipeline under the ABC cart track, to which, they are not entitled to and inasmuch as the defendants, despite the protests made by the plaintiff, are attempting to lay underneath pipeline and thereby, interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit cart track, it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that Gopal Reddiar owned lands in various survey numbers as stated in the plaint. However, it is false to state that Gopal Reddiar had acquired absolute right over the ABC cart track by way of the sale deed dated 12.09.1960 for the purpose of having access to his lands and enjoyed the cart track as the exclusive owner of the same, Gopal Redidar had purchased the right over the suit car track by way of the abovesaid sale deed only to take his men, cart and cattle for the purpose of having access to his properties and not any exclusive ownership over the same. It is true that Gopal Reddiar had sold the lands to the defendants by way of the sale deed dated 20.06.1968 and it is false to state that only an easementary right of usage of the cart track had been granted to the defendants by way of the said sale deed. It is false to state that Gopal Reddiar had sold the lands to the plaintiff and his mother Palaniammal by way of the sale deeds dated 23.08.1974 inclusive the right over the ABC cart track and it is false to state that Palaniammal, thereafter, settled her property in favour of the plaintiff by way of a settlement deed dated 06.09.1975 and thereby, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the ABC cart track. It is false to state that the defendants have no right to lay the pipeline underneath