The legal principle established is that the conveyance of easementary rights must be explicitly stated in the sale deed, and the absence of such conveyance renders the claimed easementary right legally unsustainable.

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Gopichettipalayam reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2002 passed in O.S. No. 177 of 2001, on the file of District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"1. In the face of the covenant in Ex.A2 about the nature of property forming the subject matter of suit common lane, to which the defendant is a party as a vendor, have not the lower appellate court committed an error of law in giving a judgment contrary to such covenant?"

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff seeking easementary right over the suit pathway described as A B C D in the plaint plan attached to the plaint and also the consequential reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. As per the averments contained in the plaint, it is found that the defendant and her sons were the owners of the property belonging to the plaintiff. It is found that they had sold the same to one Lalitha @ Lalithambal by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.05.1982 and in turn the plaintiff had purchased the same from Lalitha @ Lalithambal by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.02.1984 and thus it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit pathway is the common pathway to the plaintiff as well as the defendant and accordingly she is entitled to use the suit pathway and in as much as the defendant without any authority is disputing the plaintiff's right of using the suit pathway and also put up a gate at the western end of the suit pathway with a view to prevent the plaintiff from having access to the pathway, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The defendant has disputed the entitlement of any right over the suit pathway in favour of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint and it is the specific case of the defendant that no right has been conveyed to Lalitha @ Lalithambal by the defendant and her sons in respect of the suit pathway in the sale deed dated 19.05.1982 and therefore she had disputed the plaintiff's claim of right over the suit pathway by way of purchase from Lalitha @ Lalithambal under the sale deed dated 01.02.1984 and hence according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to have any right whatsoever including the easementary right in respect of the suit pathway and it is further stated that the plaintiff is having access to her property through other ways and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

6. In the light of the defence projected , it is for the plaintiff to establish that he is entitled to the easementary right over the suit pathway as projected in the plaint. For sustaining the abovesaid claim, the plaintiff relied upon the sale deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff traces the right over the suit pathway on the strength of the purchase of the same from Lalitha @ Lalithambal under the sale deed dated 01.02.1984 marked as Ex.A1. In turn, it is found that Lalitha @ Lalithambal had acquired the property from the defendant and her sons by way of a sale deed dated 19.05.1982 and the certified copy of the same has come to be marked as Ex.A2. On a perusal of Ex.A2, it is found that as rightly determined by the first appellate court, Lalitha @ Lalithambal had acquired the property within the specific boundaries. The said property is found to be lying to the north of the house property belonging to the defendant and her sons as well as the common east west pathway. It is found that by way of Ex.A2, only the property lying to the north of the defendant's property and the common p