Defendants could not establish a right of way over plaintiff's property, as ownership and necessary easements were not present.

1. The legal representatives of the defendants are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondents filed a suit against the defendants in O.S. No. 2251 of 1985, against the father and mother of the appellants, who were the sole defendants for an injunction from using a pathway shown as A, B, C, D in the plaint plan, claiming exclusive right. Likewise, he has filed another suit in O.S. No. 9158 of 1986 from preventing the plaintiff from using the A, B. C, D pathway to reach the land E, F, G, H. There was a common trial of both the suits and ultimately the trial Court has dismissed both the suits, as against which the plaintiff filed the first appeal in A. S. No. 362 of 1991 and 363 of 1991 respectively and both the appeals were taken together and allowing both the appeals, the first appellate Court has granted an order of injunction, as prayed for in both the suits by the plaintiffs. It is as against the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendants have filed the above second appeals. Pending the above said second appeals, since the appellants died, their legal representatives have been brought on record.

2. While admitting the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court -
"is not a purchaser of a property, which forms part of a larger extent of land entitled for passage to have ingress and egress to his property as a matter of necessity under S.13 of the Easement Act, even though the neighbouring owner may be that person's husband."

3. The facts leading to the above said appeals are that the first defendant in the suit B. Sivaraman purchased one housing plot measuring 3483.66 sq. ft. out of 8.5 grounds from one C. L. Rajasekaran under a sale deed executed on 5-12-1973, which is marked as Ex. B1, the xerox registration copy of which was marked as Ex. A4. That was the property formed part of plot No. 7A measuring 79 ft. North to South on both East and Western sides and East - West on the Northern side 44 ft. and on the Southern side 44ft. 3 inches measuring a total extent of 3483.66 sq. ft. The second defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant, has purchased one housing plot measuring 1062 sq. ft. out of the said 8.5 ground from C. L. Rajasekaran under a registered sale deed executed on 1-4-1976 and marked as Ex. B3, the registration copy of which was marked as Ex. A5. The said plot purchased by the second defendant is adjacent to the property purchased by the first defendant on its Southern side.

4. The plaintiff's case is that he has entered into an agreement for sale on 13-5-1978 with the common owner of all these properties, namely, C. L. Rajasekaran on 13-5-1978, the xerox copy of which was marked before the trial Court as Ex. A1 and according to him as per the agreement, the said C. L. Rajasekaran has agreed to sell the portion of plot No. 7A, which also comprised the above said plots purchased by the defendants, measuring 56 ft. East - West on the Northern side, 57 ft. 6 inches East - West on the Southern side, 66 ft. North to South on the Western side and 61 ft. North to South on the Eastern side measuring 3525 sq. ft. and a pathway having width of 12 ft. running from Moubarys Road first cross street North to South, which is the exclusive access for the plaintiff's use. According to the plaintiff, the said properties stated to have been agreed to be sold by C. L. Rajasekaran in favour of the plaintiff, is situated on the Southern side of the first and second defendants' property and the exclusive pathway claimed by the