1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that the 'A' schedule property is a common passage of the plaintiff, the defendants and other owners of the other properties situated immediately north of the 'A' schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's common possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the offending construction shown as 'B' schedule. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court rejected the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Thus, the present second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.

2. The second appeal was admitted by this Court by raising the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the courts below are right in holding that Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act is not attracted in this case, overlooking that admittedly the entire plaint schedule properties originally belonged to a common owner, that parties have purchased portions from the common owner and that the plaint 'A' schedule property is the only access to all the sharers to reach their respective portions from the main road?

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit 'A' schedule property is a common passage belonging to the plaintiff, the defendant and others whose properties are admittedly situated north of the 'A' schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is not entitled to put up any construction in the 'A' schedule property and therefore, the construction put up by the first defendant shown as 'B' schedule in the said common passage, is liable to be removed and that the defendants must be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's common possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property. It is his further case that as per family arrangement entered between the family members of vendor of the property purchased by each parties, the 'A' schedule was shown as common property and thus, the plaintiff is also entitled to right of easement by necessity.

5. Per contra, the case of the defendants is that the 'A' schedule property is not a common property to all the parties, as claimed by the plaintiff and on the other hand, it is the exclusive property of each parties situated at the southern portion of the property owned by the each persons. In other words, the 'A' schedule is only the southern portion of each individual property of the parties and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim it as a common passage or pathway.

6. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A8 and examined PW-1 and PW-2. No document was marked on the side of the defendants, however the first defendant was examined as DW-1.

7. Upon considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence let in by them, the trial Court found that the suit 'A' schedule property is not a common passage and consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court by specifically observing that the plaintiff has not proved through any documentary evidence to show that the 'A' schedule property is a common passage, except the oral testimony of PW-1. The lower appellate Court found that the 'A' schedule is forming part of the exclusive property purchased by the respective parties under 'A' to 'F' items. The lower appellate Court thus found that the plaintiff having filed a suit for declaration to declare the 'A' schedule as a common passage, is not entitled to claim easementary right over the said property, which plea goes contra to the relief sought for in the suit. Thus, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant c