JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2020 made in A.S.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgment and the decree dated 16.11.2017 in O.S.No.382 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

The plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.382 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore are the appellants before this Court.

2. The facts in brief for disposing of the above second appeal are as follows and the parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the trial Court, namely, Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

Plaintiff's case :

3. (i) The suit was originally instituted by the first plaintiff to declare their right to access the “A” schedule property through the passage described as the plaint “B” schedule property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with this access of the plaintiff. Thereafter, it appears that the properties had been sold to the second plaintiff who had been impleaded so in the suit vide orders dated 26.08.2016 in I.A.No.672 of 2016. After the amendment, the prayer was amended to the limited extent that the declaration and injunction was in respect of the second plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 22.11.1979, the “A” schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff. At the time of purchase, the property, which has been described as “A” schedule property did not have any access and the property was land locked. Therefore, the first plaintiff had approached one Periyakkal, their neighbour requesting her to grant access through her property to reach the “A” schedule property. Periyakkal executed a lease agreement with the first plaintiff by leasing out the “B” schedule property measuring 7 cents 076 sq.ft in S.F.501 at Sarkar Samakulam Village, Coimbatore measuring 120 feet length and 25 feet breadth. This property what was described as the “B” schedule property in the suit schedule properties.

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said lease agreement was registered on 23.11.1979 as document No.2030 of 1979 on the file of the S.R.O, Periyanaickenpalayam. The lease was for a period of 10 years and the lease rental was a sum of Rs.60/- per year. The above lands and its larger extent was purchased by Periyakkal in the year 1945 under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.08.1945. The said Periyakkal died on 13.10.1983 leaving behind her surviving her 2 sons, the first defendant and one Arumugam, who is the father of the fourth defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. After the death of Periyakkal, on 17.11.1986, the sons of Periakkal sold the entire land barring the “B” schedule property measuring 1.11 ½ acres to one Padmavathi and others. After their purchase, Padmavathi and others had entered into two registered partition deeds on 30.06.1992 dividing the properties. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that in the Sale Deed dated 17.11.1986 in favour of Padmavathi and Others, there is a recital about the pathway, which is being used by the plaintiffs. It is the plaintiffs' case that they have been using the pathway for over two decades without any obstruction and have prescribed title to the same. It is their case that now the defendants 1 to 4 are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs' use and possession of the suit property. Pending the suit, the first plaintiff has sold away the property which includes the suit “B” schedule property to the second plaintiff. Therefore, the 2nd plaintiff was impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff and the relief in the suit was sought for only in respect of the 2nd plaintiff.

4. The suit “B” schedule property is described herein below :

Schedule B:-

Written statement and Additional written statement :

5. The third defendant had filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1 to 4. At the outset they had contended that