JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 passed in A.S. No. 36 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 passed in O.S. No. 46 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayamkondam.

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

(a) Whether in law is not the Lower Appellate Court wrong in granting decree for declaration of Easementary Right by prescription in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of Easements Act?

(b) Whether in Law is not the Lower Appellate Court wrong in granting decree for declaration of Easementary Right by prescription as prayed for by holding that the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled for Easementary Right by necessity which is not prayed for?

(c) Is not the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court vitiated in that it has failed to consider Exs. B3 to B5 which clearly show that there is no reference to the existence of Cart Track in the prior title deeds?

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 the rankings in the trial court.

5. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.

6. The relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff is the easementary right which is stated to have been acquired by the plaintiff in respect of the suit cart track and according to the plaintiff, he had acquired the easementary right qua the suit property both by way of prescription as well as by way of necessity and thereby contended that the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest had been enjoying the suit cart track for more than the statutory period and also contended that other than the suit cart track, there is no other access to reach his properties and putting forth the case that the defendants without any entitlement, attempted to interfere with his right of easement over the suit cart track and thereby prevented him from enjoying his properties and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

7. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that there is no cart track on the ground as alleged in the plaint and according to the defendants, they had purchased the extent of 30 cents of land by way of a sale deed dated 30.06.1998 inclusive of the portion alleged to have been used as the cart track by the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest and further according to the defendants, the suit cart track has never been in existence and never been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest and therefore according to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs prayed for. Further according to the defendants, the plaintiff has other access to reach his properties and accordingly also disputed the case of the plaintiff's that he had right of easement over the alleged suit cart track by way of necessity and in toto prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

8. Based on the materials placed on record and the submissions made by the respective parties, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. The first appellate court, however set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the defendants have come forward with the present second appeal.

9. The plaintiff is claiming the easementary right in respect of the suit property which according to the plaintiff, is the cart track and the description of the suit property shown in the plain