JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Salem in A.S. No.4 of 2015 dated 08.06.2015. The appellants herein are the Plaintiffs, who filed the main Suit filed in O.S. No.840 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the Suit property and the trial Court, decreed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants have preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S. No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree in respect of declaration and dismissed the Suit for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:-

The Plaintiffs are brothers and sons of one Ranganathan and Arayee. The 1^st defendant and one Sadaya Gounder are son and brother of one Kaliappan. The defendants 2 to 4 are sons of the said Sadaya Gounder. The 1^st defendant is the paternal uncle of the defendants 2 to 4. Originally the Suit property is a cart track situated in S. No.181/5B of Muthampatti Village running east west from the said Arayee’s lands in S. No.181/2B to the said Ranganathan’s lands in S. No.185/4, 185/6 and 185/7. The said Arayee’s land in S. No.181/2B is situated adjacent to the Panchayath Road in S. No.184, but the said Ranganathan’s lands in S. No.185/4, 186/6 and 185/7 have no access with the Panchayath Road. Therefore, the said Ranganathan purchased the Suit property from one Kaliappan, the father of the 1^st defendant for a valuable consideration through the Sale Deed dated 29.10.1984. At the time of sale of the property, the said Kaliappan reserved his right of cart track in the Suit property. Therefore, the said Ranganathan was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the Suit property and separate patta was granted in favour of the said Ranganathan. The said Ranganathan and Aarayi had settled all their properties including the Suit property in favour of the Plaintiffs through two registered Sale Deeds dated 11.12.2008 and the possession was also delivered on the same day. The Plaintiffs and their parents have been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit property continuously. The Suit property is the only pathway to reach the Plaintiffs’ land from the Panchayat Road. The said Kaliappan died and the defendants 1 to 4, being the legal heirs of the said Kaliappan, have no right, title or interest over the Suit property, except the right to use cart track. Now the defendants are trying to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the Plaintiffs filed the Suit.

3. The brief averments of written statement and additional written statement filed by the 1 s t defendant, adopted by the 2 to 4 defendants, are as follows:-

The allegations levelled in the Plaint are denied as false, except those, that are specially admitted herein. The allegation in respect of the cart track in S. No.181/5 is true and it leads to Ranganathan’s land in Survey No.185/4, 185/6 and 185/7. But the said Aarayee had only one cent of land in Survey No.181/5 on the southern end of it. The Road was laid in Survey No.181/5 on the southern extremity measuring nine feet in width and 375 feet in length. Originally this Road was not in existence and only the right of foot path was in existence, as Plaintiffs’ parents could not take cattle and cart on the eastern side to their lands, a nine foot cart track was agreed to be laid in Survey No.181/5. Later, without concurrence of these defendants, the Plaintiffs’ father approached the Revenue department for subdivision of the cart track which was made in excess of a nine feet in width and the same was objected by these defendants. The Plaintiffs, very often started obstructing these defendants from passi