The judgment established the principle that a sharer is entitled to use ridges, irrigation channels, and common well in divided properties, and affirmed the right to continuous usage under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in A.S.No.106 of 2012, dated 01.04.2013, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in O.S.No.946 of 2004, dated 28.04.2011.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.946 of 2004 before the learned I Additional District Munsif, Trichirapalli, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., from in any way obstructing the passage of the plaintiff, their family members, men, agents etc., to the common well and suit properties along the ridge shown as 'AB', 'BCDEF', 'GH', 'IJ', 'BKL' and 'MN' for agricultural purposes along with cattle, power tiller and agricultural produce.

4. The plaint proceeds on the basis that;

[a] The plaintiff and the defendants are all Pangalis. The original common ancestor Lakshmanan had four sons. His first son is Onthan; the second son is Adaikkalam; the third son is Nallapethi and the fourth son is Thevan. The plaintiff is the grand son of Nallapethi and he belongs to third branch. The defendants belong to the 1st and 2nd and 4th branches.

[b] The sons of the common ancestor divided the family properties about 100 years back. Each of the four branches got 1/4th share in all the family properties. The sharers put up ridges demarcating their shares from others. The have also during channels in their patta lands. The ridges and patta channels are enjoyed in common by all the branches to reach their respective shares and irrigate their shares.

[c] There is a well common to both the plaintiff and the defendants situated in Survey No.327/8. The thope belongs to the plaintiff's brother is situated just north of the common well.

[d] The only way for the plaintiff to reach the common well is along a ridge 'AB' measuring 3 feet wide branching off from the cart track as shown in the plaint plan. The defendants have also to pass through the land of the plaintiff's brother to reach the well. There is also a passage 10 feet wide at present branching off from the cart track and leading to common well and the houses of the defendants. The plaintiff is using the ridge for access, taking cattle, power tiller and taking harvested crops from the land to the thrashing floor.

[e] The defendants have no right to obstruct the passage along the ridges 'BCDEF' 'GH', 'IJ', 'BKL' and 'MN' shown in the plaint plan. The plaintiff is not obstructing the defendants to use the passage and ridges. In case of lands owned in common and later divided, the right to pass along the ridges to reach the shares is created at the time of partition. On 07.06.1999, the defendants attempted to put up constructions near the point 'A' shown in the plan. But, the attempt was thwarted by the plaintiff with the help of nearby people. Hence, the above suit was filed by the plaintiff.

5. The defendants have filed written statement resisting the claim of the quasi easmentary right of the property inter alia contending that

[a] The suit is out come of the ill-feelings entertained by the plaintiff against the defendants, who are their Pangalis. By immemorial custom in the village, the ridges are being formed from the lands of the adjacent owners. In such a case, as a matter of convenience but not as a matter of right, people and cattle were allowed to be taken along such ridges, but not carts, vehicles or power-tillers as in particular, the ridges will be only 1 1/2 feet width. No passage of right can be claimed over the ridges.

[b] In fact, the plaintiff's brother, who is colluding with the plaintiff, has planted coconut trees, two years back on the ridge north of the common well. The ridges are not