The main legal principle established is the interpretation of property rights and easementary rights based on the provisions of the partition deeds.

T. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. The second appeals are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2001 passed in A.S. Nos. 6 & 7 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2000 passed in O.S. Nos. 141 of 1997 & 218 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.

2. Both the second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the lower appellate Court's judgment is vitiated due to non-consideration of the recital in Exhibit A-2 Partition Deed dated 29.06.1961 regarding the provisions of pathway contained in the recital that 4 cubic wide north-south pathway on the western extremity of S.F. No. 248 immediately adjacent from the eastern poli or boundary in S.F. No. 248?

2. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that 4 cubic wide south-north pathway on the eastern extremity is provided in addition to already existing 3 cubic (3 muzham) with pathway contrary to Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-4?

3. Whether the findings of the Courts below holding that 7 cubic pathway is provided without any materials on record both documentary and oral evidence is correct?

4. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are justified in enlarging the width of the pathway for taking lorry, tractor, etc., when specific right was given for taking cattle, foot pathway for men to walk in the partition deed document, Exhibit A-1 dated 27.03.1931 and Exhibit A-2 dated 29.6.1961?

5. While the Commissioner's report and plan support the plea of the appellant that the alleged pathway was never used for taking tractor or lorry and there is no symptom of wheel mark at any point of time and belied and version of the 1st respondent, the lower appellate Court is correct in discarding the Commissioner's report and plan instead of making order for re-issue of the Commission if any doubt or omission to be clarified by the lower Appellate Court?

6. Whether the approach of the Courts below in interpretation that the pathway is 7 cubic (7 muzham) wide pathway instead of 4 cubic (4 muzham) wide pathway without any material on record is stilted for approval?

7. Whether the lower appellate Court's finding of 7 cubic wide pathway is correct or justified when the 1st respondent inconsistent plea of claiming easement right in O.S. No. 141 of 1997 whereas he is claiming easement right by document Exhibits B-1 sale deed?

8. Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit O.S. No. 218 of 1998 on the basis that the plaintiff is entitled to have right to take lorry, carts and tractor in the pathway as easement of necessity, prescription and also document under Exhibit B-1 sale deed when no such right is given in Exhibits A-1 and A-2?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved in these second appeals 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 appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 141 of 1997 and 5th defendant in O.S. No. 218 of 1998. The first respondent is the first defendant in O.S. No. 141 of 1997 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 218 of 1998.

6. The dispute between the parties is only as regards the pathway. In fact, the dispute is only as regards width of the pathway as such, therefore, it is found that the dispute between the parties as regards the pathway in dispute involves only the appreciation of the facts and not on any question of law as sought to be made out by the appellant.

7. From the materials placed on record, it is found that five sharers, whose names are also not necessary to be divulged entered into a partition deed dated 27.03.1939 marked as Ex.A1 and in the abovesaid partition deed, it is found that out of the extent of 19.86 acres in S.F. No. 248, 9.93 acres on the southern side of the same had been allotted to Kuppanna Gouner, which i