JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 made in A.S.No.71 of 2004 and A.S.No.50 of 2005 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dharmapuri reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2004 made in O.S.No.282 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Palacode.)

1. These twin appeals arise out of two decrees passed in two separate appeals, both of which have arisen from O.S.No.282 of 1997. The suit is laid for declaration of plaintiff's right over a cart track in the suit property. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

1.2. The suit came to be decreed as against which the 1st defendant has filed A.S.No.71 of 2004 and the defendants 2 and 3 had filed A.S.No.50 of 2005. Both these appeals came to be disposed of by a common judgment of the first Appellate Court, by which it allowed the appeals and non suited the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has come forward with these appeals.

2.1 There is a broader agreement on substantive facts, and the only dispute relates to the right of way. Hence the facts not in dispute are narrated as below:

A certain Muniya Gounder held the properties in S.F.Nos:184, 185 and 186 as his ancestral properties. These properties lie in one block. Muniya Gounder had four sons and they are: (i) Rama Gounder (ii) Murugesan Gounder (iii) Koolan and (iv) Kannu alias Govindasamy. Subsequently, all the four brothers had orally partitioned the aforesaid properties.

While so, under Ext.A1, dated 12.06.1967 Govindasamy Gounder (brother of the plaintiff/appellant) referred to above had sold 75 cents in S.No.185 and 2.45 acres in S.No.186 along with a fractional share in the well in S.No.186 that came to be allotted to him in the partition to one Ponnammal and Jayalakshmi. The purchaser namely Jayalakshmi is arrayed as 2nd defendant in the suit. The 3rd defendant is son of Jayalakshmi.

From one of the co-purchaser under Ext.A1, namely Ponnammal, the plaintiff has purchased 1.50 acre in S.F.No.186 under Ext.A2 dated 10.06.1985. It may be stated here that the schedule of properties in Ext.A1 described the property conveyed therein to include a right over a cart track along northern extremity/boundary of S.No.184 for reaching S.Nos.185 and 186 on the south. This description finds a repetition in Ext.A-2 under which the plaintiff has purchased Ponnammal's share of the property.

If the properties were to be described with the aid of the plan appended to the plaint, the plaintiff has his share of the property on the east and to the west of which lies the property covered under Ext.A-1 in favour of Jayalakshmi and Ponnammal. And, the property which Ponnammal had sold to the plaintiff under Ext.A-2 lies to the south of the remaining portion belonging to the second defendant.

Be that as it may, Munusamy Gounder, one of the sons of Munia Gounder, another brother of the present plaintiff, had sold 1.03 acres in S.No.184 and 1.40 acre under S.No.185 in favour of a certain Perumal under Ext.B4 sale deed dated 04.02.1972. Subsequently, the purchaser under Ext.B4 had sold the property he had purchased to Chennammal, the 1st defendant, under Ext.B2 dated 29.05.1979. These two sale deed do not refer to right of way.

The main road is on the north and to the immediate south lies the property of the first defendant. To its further south is situate the property of the plaintiff that he had obtained in the family partition. To the south of the first defendant's property and the west of the plaintiff's property is the second defendant's share of the property that she had purchased under Ext.A-1. To the south of second defendant's plot lies the property that the plaintiff had purchased from Ponnammal. In other words, the plaintiff's property is situated in two blocks. 2.2 The Plaintiff's case:

According to the plaintiff if he were to access the main road from the property all