The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the right of easement under the Easements Act, 1882, and the requirement of credible evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872 in determining the plaintiffs' entitlement to the cart track through the suit property.

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2004 and Cross Appeal on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam confirming/modifying the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.151 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate court, Neyveli.

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

"1. When the respondents had not acquired any right of easement as envisaged under Section 12 of the Easements Act, 1882, whether they are entitled to decree for declaration and injunction?

2. When the respondents had not established their alleged use of the suit pathway by credible evidence, whether the courts below are justified in law in decreeing the suit in contravention of Sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872?

3. Whether the Lower Appellate court is correct in law in dismissing the Appeal and partly allowing the Cross Appeal, especially when the respondents had failed to establish the width of the suit pathway as alleged by them?

4. When the vendor of the respondents under Ex.A1 sale Deed, does not have any right over the suit pathway, whether the respondents are entitled to claim right over the suit pathway, particularly when the plea of estoppel enumerated under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would operate against them?

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. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

5. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction or in the alternative for the recovery of the possession.

6. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for claiming the right of way/cart-track in the suit property in R.S.No.490/7. It is not in dispute that the extent of 15 cents in R.S.No.490/7 of the suit village originally belonged to Thoppula Padayachi. Thoppula Padayachi had two sons, namely, Veerasamy and Rajamanickam. The first plaintiff and his the brother Illayaperumal are the sons of Veerasamy and the first defendant is the son of Rajamanickam. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, in respect of the 15 cents in R.S.No.490/7, by way of Ex.A2 partition deed dated 19.07.1976, the first plaintiff and the first defendant had partitioned the same and by way of the said partition, the northern 7 ½ cents had been alloted to the share of the first plaintiff and the southern 7 ½ cents had been alloted to the share of the first defendant. The abovesaid partition deed Ex.A2 further recites that the first defendant should leave a pathway on the eastern side of the share alloted to him lying in the southern side as a pathway for enabling the plaintiff to have access to his portion on the northern side from the road which is admittedly lying to the south of R.S.No.490/7. That such a recital is available for carving out the pathway in the share alloted to the first defendant in Ex.A2 partition deed is not disputed by the defendants as such. In fact, as could be seen from the sale deed executed by the first defendant's wife in favour of Visalakshiammal by way of Ex.A4 sale deed dated 23.10.1991, it is found that the first defendant's wife had only alienated 5 cents out of 7½ cents lying in the southern portion in R.S.No.490/7 and in clear terms had left out the 2½ cents of land towards the cart track. It is thus found that inasmuch as the cart track had been earmarked for the first plaintiff to have access in respect of the said portion, accordingly it is found that while conveying the property under Ex.A4, the first defendant's wife had also clearly left out 2½ cents earmarked for the cart track portion and only alienated the remaining 5 cents of land to Visalakshiammal. In such view of the matter,