A prescriptive easement right is established through clear evidence of continuous, long-standing usage by the claimant and their predecessors, documented in historical title deeds, unaffected by the subsequent acquisition of alternative access during litigation.

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 10.11.2022 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in O.S.No.27 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.

2. The first respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration that he was entitled to use suit cart-track for taking men, cattle, carts, etc. to his lands and for his ingress and egress. He also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right of user over the suit cart-track. He further sought for the mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to restore the portion of the cart-track obliterated by them. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have come before this Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the properties bearing survey Nos.344/2, 344/3, 344/4, 344/5, and 344/7. The plaintiff purchased above said land from one Pounambal under registered sale deed dated 23.04.1984. There is a mamool (usual) cart-track 10 feet in breadth branches off from east-west panchayat road on the southern side of the suit property, which passes through the property of the defendants 1 and 2 and then reaches the plaintiff's property. The suit cart-track has been shown as A, B, C, D, E, F in the plaint plan.

4. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been using the same for the past 20 years from the date of purchase and the said cart-track had been in existence for more than 60 years. The vendor of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest were using the suit cart-track all along. It was also stated that the suit cart-track was the only cart-track leading to the property of the plaintiff and he had no other alternative access for ingress and egress to his land. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he and his predecessor in interest have been using the suit cart-track continuously without any objection from owners of the land through which the suit cart-track passes for more than 60 years.

5. It was also stated that the defendants 1 and 2 obliterated portion of the suit cart-track shown as A,B,C,D in the plaint plan to the length of 80.6 meters south-north and 10 feet east-west and annexed the same along with their lands. Since the defendants 1 and 2 refused to restore the obliterated portion of the suit cart-track as demanded by the plaintiff, the instant suit has been filed for the above said reliefs.

6. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant. According to the contesting defendants, there was no suit cart-track as alleged by the plaintiff and he never used the suit cart-track for ingress and egress as averred in the plaint. According to the defendants, they are the absolute owners of the properties situated in suit survey numbers and there is no cart-track as alleged by the plaintiff.

7. It was also stated that the plaintiff’s vendor Pounammal purchased the property on 03.03.1982 and there was no recital in the said sale deed regarding the so-called cart track passing through the survey numbers of the defendants. It was also stated that