Easement rights can be established based on necessity even if prescriptive rights are not proved, provided there is evidence of long-standing usage.

JUDGMENT :

V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2011, in A.S.No.34 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 12.01.2010, in O.S.No.51 of 2002, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

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

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plaintiffs are the owners of the lands in S.Nos.204/2A, 204/1F, 204/1D, 215/6, 215/7 and other lands at Palamedu village, Tiruchengode Taluk. The defendants are the owners of the lands in S.No.215/5 at Palamedu village, Tiruchengode Taluk. The lands in S.Nos.215/5 and 215/6 are adjacent to each other and in between the lands of S.Nos.204 and 215, Thirumanimutharu river runs and there cannot be water in the river in all the months of the year. There is a well beaten cart track that starts on the western corner of S.No.215/6, runs along the southern border of S.No.215/5, then runs towards the west to S.No.215/5 and then to Thirumanimutharu river and reaches S.No.204/1D. The plaintiffs are using the said cart track to ingress and egress from their lands in S.Nos.215/6 to 204/1D. The plaintiffs and their predecessors are using the suit cart track for all these years. Except the suit cart track, there is no access from S.No.204/1D to reach S.No.215/6. The plaintiffs, their men, cattle, lorries and other heavy vehicles are using the suit cart track. The width of the suit cart track is 15 feet. The plaintiffs are entitled to the right of cart track under the principle of easement by necessity and prescription. Due to the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants with regard to cattle trespass, the defendants made arrangement to obliterate the suit cart track that runs in S.F.No.215/5 and also obstructed the plaintiffs from using the same. The defendants have no right to obliterate the suit cart track. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of easement right of cart track with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way obstructing the plaintiffs from using the suit cart track or obliterate the same with the cost of the suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit, denied the allegations in the plaint and filed a written statement contending that there is no cart track ABCD as alleged in the plaint rough plan on ground. The allegations that the plaintiffs are using the said cart track to ingress and egress from their lands in S.No.215/6 to S.No.204/1D and their predecessors also using the same is false and incorrect. The allegation that the plaintiffs are not having any other cart track except the one shown in the description of property is false. It is absolutely false to allege that the width of the suit cart track is 15 feet. There is no cart track as alleged. The plaintiffs are not taking their cart, cattle, lorries and other vehicles and they are not entitled to any right much less easement by necessity and prescription which are inconsistent. Hence this suit is not maintainable in law and thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues and additional issue were framed by the trial Court for consideration:

1. Whether the suit cart track ABCD is in existence and the plaintiffs are entitled to use the same?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent inju