The court determined that easementary rights granted in a sale deed are valid and enforceable, overruling lower court findings based on misinterpretation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court, rejecting the suit for relief of declaration and injunction filed by the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff had purchased the land situated in the Southern side of the defendants' land from the defendants' vendor, as per Sale deed dated 18.02.1987. In the Sale deed, the plaintiff’s vendor has granted permission to use the cart track situated on the Western side corner of the defendant's land, to reach their land shown as A, B, C, D in the Rough Plan. This cart track was being used by the plaintiff for more than 40 years. The first defendant now entered in to an Agreement of Sale with the second defendant. Due to previous enmity, on instigation of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 started preventing the plaintiff from using the cart track. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that he is having a right based on easementary right of necessity and prescription thereby, filed the suit praying for declaration that he is entitled to use the land of the defendant and consequential injunction.

4. The defendants' filed written statement and contended that there is no cart track in existence as stated in the Sale deed, dated 18.02.1987 executed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants' have purchased the land situated on the Northern side of the plaintiff’s land, as per Sale deed dated 26.04.2004 and the entire land was used for agriculture purpose. The portion of land claimed to be a cart track is filled with rocks, bushes and stones. The claim is being made by suppressing the fact that the alleged cart track is running on the defendants' land and by obtaining interim order, the plaintiff was trying to lay the cart track in the plaintiff’s land.

5. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues.

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as claimed in the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit?

3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for?”

6. After recording the evidence of both sides, the trial Court rejected the suit. The Appellate Court has also confirmed the same by dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

7. At the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law?

“1. Whether the subsequent sale by the common vendor, when he had given a right of cart track prior to that sale of the 1^st defendant by way of Ex.A1 to the plaintiff is bound to liable?

2. Has not the Courts below committed a grave error in holding that the vendor had no right to give a right of cart track, when the common vendor has given the right of cart track in his land to the plaintiff in the sale deed viz., Ex.A1?

3. Has not the Courts below committed an error that not granting the relief as per Ex.A1 the plaintiff has been granted the right of cart track?

4. Whether the Courts below correct in law in holding that the plaintiff has not proved that except the suit cart track no other cart track to reach his land, when the plaintiff has granted the right of cart track by common vendor in his land?”

8. The scope of interfering with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below is well settled and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs.