Easementary rights can be enforced based on established historical evidence of access, even without explicit pleading of necessity, as confirmed by relevant sale deeds.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated12.07.2019 in A.S.No. 36 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Sub ordinate Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2016 made in O.S.No.196 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to one Chinnaraju. On15.02.1982 he purchased 8 cents out of 26 cents in the suit S.No.80/8A and thereafter he sold 9 cents in favour of one Balakrishnan under the sale deed dated 20.12.1982.

2.1.'A' schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff's father Rajalingam from the said Chinnaraju for valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.1985. The property in the suit survey number was sold by Chinnaraju after forming a common pathway and the same is reflected in the sale deed, executed by the said Chinnaraju in favour of Balakrishnan.

2.2.It is further submitted that 'B' schedule property is a poromboke land and it was in the possession of the vendor of the Rajalingam and thereafter, Rajalingam was in peaceful possession of the suit property by putting thatched house which is now leased out. Hence, the plaintiff's father and his vendor were in open and hostile possession of the 'B' schedule property and also had possessory right over the same. The properties sold in favour of Balakrishnan was purchased by the 1^st defendant trust on 07.02.1996. Thereafter, the adjacent property was also purchased by the 1^st defendant trust through another sale deed dated 22.01.1997. The above documents reflect the boundaries and existence of the pathway from east to west connecting the Panruti main road upto the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's father, only after confirming the pathway purchased the 'A' Schedule property. While so, the 1^st defendant constructed a Matriculation School administered by the 2^nd defendant annexing the poromboke land to an extent of more than 25 cents. On 03.04.2003 the father of the plaintiff died intestate. Even after purchase by the 1^st defendant trust, the plaintiff's father and plaintiff used the pathway from main road to the suit properties. While so, the defendants 1 & 2 blocked the said pathway by way of putting a pucca gate on the western and southern side of the plaintiff's property leaving no access to reach the main road or any other road. As such there is no road available in the northern side of the suit properties. The only possible access for the plaintiffs is to go through the suit 'C' schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit for the following reliefs:

i. To declare that the suit 'C' schedule property, described as ''A B C D E F'' in the suit plan is a pubic road and consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the 3^rd defendant to remove the encroachments and obstructions in the road within a stipulated time failing which, it may be done through the process of court.

ii. And for declaring the possessory right of the plaintiffs over the suit 'B' schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the 4^th defendant to issue patta in favour of the plaintiffs for 'B' schedule property.

3.The respondent resisted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement under the following contentions:

The Defendants 1 and 2 specifically deny that the property described in ABCDEF is a public road and it is equally false to state that there are encroachments and obstruction in the road. Their contention is that the said Chinnaraju owned 16 ce