Easement rights cannot be established solely through a sale deed without appropriate legal title or declaration.

JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, dated 29.07.2008, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.13 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, dated

06.11.2007.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

3. Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate court, the defendants have preferred this appeal. Before the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2005 for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from causing any interference with the plaintiff’s right to use the B-Schedule cart track. The suit was filed against two defendants, who are the appellants herein. Before the trial court, both the defendants contested the suit, stating that no such cart track as described in the B-Schedule existed within the suit property. They also contended that the plaintiff had an alternative pathway to reach her land.

4. Considering the submissions from both sides, the trial court framed issues and appointed a Commissioner, who submitted his report. After considering the title deeds relied on by the plaintiff and the Commissioner’s report, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff’s vendor, Dharman, was not assigned the B-Schedule cart track. Therefore, the plaintiff was bound to prove how she acquired the right over the B-Schedule pathway, which runs through the lands of the defendants. Furthermore, the Commissioner’s report did not establish the existence of the B-Schedule common pathway, and it was found that the plaintiff had not obtained any pathway right from the common owner, Dharman. Consequently, the suit was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the B-Schedule cart track. Challenging the said finding, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No.

21 of 2008.

5. The learned first appellate Judge analyzed the evidence on record and framed separate points for consideration. By evaluating the Commissioner’s report and the available evidence, the appellate court held that the B-Schedule pathway was the only cart track available for the plaintiff to reach her property. The appellate court further found that there was no alternative cart track as claimed by the defendants to access the A- Schedule property. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed. Challenging the reversal findings, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

6. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff claims that she is the absolute owner of the A-Schedule property, purchased from her brother Dharman. The defendants are adjacent landowners. The B- Schedule property is a cart track that allegedly begins from an East-West hightary, turns in an East-West direction on the extreme North, and ends at the southern part of the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff contends that this cart track is the only way to access her land and that it is mentioned in the sale deed dated 01.01.2004. The cart track has allegedly existed since time immemorial and has been used by both the plaintiff and the defendants. However, due to strained relations, the defendants are now attempting to obstruct the B-Schedule cart track, prompting the plaintiff to file the present suit.

7. The defendants filed a written statement disputing the plaintiff’s right and title over the alleged B-Schedule cart track. They contended that there was no such cart track in existence and that the plaintiff had a separate pathway to access her