Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. - (1.)AGGRIEVED by the unanimous decisions of the courts below, the unsuccessful defendants 1 to 4 have filed the instant Second Appeal.
(2.)THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the suit A, B, C cart track belonged to them and for injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the usage of the said cart track by the plaintiffs and for removal of the obstructions over the same.
One Palaniappa Gounder, Arumugam Gounder and Deivanai Ammal are brothers and sisters. Deivanai Ammal had 3 sons. Palaniappa Gounder is the first defendant and his wife is the second defendant while defendants 3 to 5 are their children. The plaintiffs are the sons of Arumugam Gounder. The said Deivanai Ammal had executed three settlement deeds on 23.04.1973 under Exs. A.1 and A.2 as well as B.2 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 3 to 5 respectively. The suit cart track is passing through the land allotted to the defendants 3 to 5 only through which the plaintiffs can reach their respective lands. Other than the suit cart track, there is no other pathway for the plaintiffs to reach their lands. While so, the defendants had obliterated the suit cart track by converting the same into a drying yard and for stacking agricultural produce resulting in the suit.

(3.)THE defendants contested the suit denying the rights of the plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint. While admitting the execution of the settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any right of easement by grant. According to the defendants, in the settlement deeds executed by Deivanai Ammal, there was no mention about the cart track and that the plaintiffs had been using only the pathway from point B on the defendants' land. The defendants also contended that the plaintiffs never used any cart track as alleged and that they have no objection for the plaintiffs using the pathway.