The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party must establish valid title and possession to claim ownership of a property, and the court will consider the physical features and evidence presented to determine ownership rights.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2004 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

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

"1. Whether the first appellate court is right in holding that the respondents / defendants have a right of cart track through the appellant / plaintiff's land, while the respondents / defendants have not produced any documents to claim a right over the patta land of the appellant / plaintiff?

2. Whether the first appellate court is right in holding that the cart track runs in the appellant / plaintiff's land is a common cart track over which the respondent / defendant have a right to use, in the absence of any documentary evidence and especially when the cart track is not extending upto the land of the respondents / defendants, while the respondents / defendants had not raised nay counter claim in the suit?

3. Whether the first appellate court is right in holding that the respondents / defendants have no other access excepting the alleged cart track through the appellant / plaintiff's land while the advocate commissioner's reports and sketch had proved that the jeep road on the L.B.P. Channel is running adjoining the respondents/defendants' land and the above report was not objected by the respondents/defendants?

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. The Suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

6. Claiming that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff by way of the registered sale deed dated 09.06.1992 marked as Ex.A9, the case has been projected by the plaintiff that the defendants, without any authority or entitlement, interfered with his possession and enjoyment and hence, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

7. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, namely, O.V. Balasubramaniam is not entitled to the extent of 10 cents in the suit survey number and in such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiff that he has acquired the title to the extent of 10 cents by way of Ex.A9 sale deed is false and further according to the defendants, the plaintiff has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as put forth in the plaint, and the description of the suit property has also been not properly given and it is further stated that there is a well formed cart track running north-south in the suit property on the western side and the plaintiff is attempting to annexe the said cart track by claiming title to the extent of 10 cents and thereby endeavouring to prevent the defendants from gaining access through the said cart track and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the said suit.

8. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial court was pleased to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the relief of permanent injunction and also observed that the defendants are entitled to take appropriate steps for seeking the remedy in the cart track, if available in the suit property and accordingly, disposed of the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court, after having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, however, with the abovesaid observation determined that the suit laid by the plaintiff is disposed of and on that basis it is found that the decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiff as if the relief of permanent injunction had been gran