Easement rights can be established through long-term use, and clarity in the property description is crucial for maintaining a claim regarding ancestral properties under civil law.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.4 of 2014 dated 31.03.2015.

2. The respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court in O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction and the suit was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2013. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2008 has preferred the Appeal Suit before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.4 of 2014 and the said Appeal Suit was partly allowed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for using the suit pathway shown in AB portion for carrying men, cattle and vehicles to the ‘P’ series lands, except P2 lands in Survey No.262/6B and the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff as against the defendant from exercising such a right. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment of the First Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants, as referred before the trial court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and he is entitled to the property through oral partition between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff and the 2 and 3 defendants are sons of the 1^st defendant. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the paternal grand father of the plaintiff namely, Karuppana Gounder and his brothers, Chinna Gounder and Periya Gounder. The said Karuppana Gounder, China Gounder and Periya Gounder orally partitioned their properties and Survey Nos.262/5 and 6 were allotted to Karuppana Gounder and Survey no.262/4 was allotted to Periya Gounder and Survey no.265/11 was allotted to Karuppana Gounder. In the north-south, there was a Eteri pathway on the western side of the lands in Survey Nos.262 and 265 and the same was later formed as Panchayat road. From the said Panchayat road, there was a pathway to reach the lands situated in S.Nos.262/4 and 5 and through that pathway, they used to take cattles and agricultural goods and the said pathway has been shown as ABCD in the plaint plan. From the said pathway, the land holders in S.F.Nos.262/4, 5 and6 and 265/11 are reaching their properties. The properties mentioned as ‘P’ series, P, P1, P2, P3 and P4 property belongs to the plaintiff. The property belongs to the 1^st defendant has been referred in the plan as D, D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5. The plaintiff and the 1^st defendant orally partitioned their properties and survey nos.262/5A, 6B, 6D and 265/11A was allotted to the plaintiff and he got patta in his favour. Similarly, S.F.Nos.262/5B, 6A, 6C, S.F.No.265/11B have been allotted to the 1^st defendant and he also got patta for those properties. Apart from that, the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant purchased the property in Survey no.262/5C, from one Kuppusamy son of Pongiya Gounder, in that, southern side was enjoyed by the plaintiff and the northern side was enjoyed by the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant separately purchased the property in S.No.262/4 from Mottiyagounder son of Periyagounder and due to the misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant, the 1^st defendant caused hindrance from enjoying