Judgment : The defendants in O.S.No.60 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Erode, are the appellants herein. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his right to use the suit cart track and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs user of the suit cart track. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, in the appeal in A.S.No.95 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Periyar District at Erode, the first appellate Judge reversed the order of dismissal of the suit, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant/first defendant died. Therefore, a memo has been filed by the counsel for the appellants stating that since the second appellant is the son and only legal representative of the first appellant, the said fact may be recorded by this Court and necessary orders may be passed. Accordingly, the second appellant being the legal representative of the first appellant is permitted to prosecute the appeal. 4. At the timeof admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law: .• (1) Whether the court below was right in granting a decree on facts contrary and inconsistent with the pleadings and the testimony of the respondent/plaintiffe .• (2) Whether the lower appellate court was right in granting a decree based on assumed easementary rights of the respondent over a portion of the suit cart track as BC in Ex.A-1 even in the absence of any pleadings therefor and contrary to the testimony of the respondente .• (3) Whether the court below was right in granting a decree to the respondent on an alleged long user over the statutory period by the respondent and thereby securing a right by prescription brushing aside the positive testimony of the respondent that he did not lay any claim to any portion of the cart-track passing through the patta lands of the appellantse 5. Inelaboration of the above substantial questions of law, the arguments were advanced by both the counsel for the parties. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. .7. Inelaboration of the above substantial questions of law, the arguments were advanced by both the counsel for the parties. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. .7. The case of the plaintiff is this: .“The plaintiff is the owner of the northern portion of S.F.No.109 of Thindal Village and the defendants are the owners of the southern portion of S.F.No.109. The plaintiff, the defendants and others have to reach their respective lands along the suit cart track which is situated in Government poromboke. Except the suit cart track, there is no other cart track for the plaintiff to reach his land in S.F.No.109 from his village. The plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title have been using the suit cart track from time immemorial and therefore, the plaintiff has perfected his right of easement by way of prescription and also of necessity. Since the defendants are now denying the easement right of the plaintiff in the suit cart track, the plaintiff filed the suit.” .8. Thecase of the defendants is as follows: .“The suit cart track is situated in the patta land S.F.No.109 belonging to the defendants and not in the poromboke. Though the cart track A to B and C to D situated in the poromboke land, the suit Cart track which relates to the portion BC in the plaint plan is situated in S.F.No.109 belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title have not used the suit cart track from time immemorial. The suit cart track was put by the defendants in their own patta land to reach their land only 4 years ago. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed”. 9. As indicated earlier, though the trial court dismissed the suit, the lower appellate court granted decree holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to the declaration and injunction mainly on the ground that the portion BC, the connecting cart track with the other portions, is a well-defined pathway and which would indicate the user of the same by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title for more than the statutory period and thereby, the plaintiff is having right to the user of the disputed portion for reaching his land and entitled to consequential injunction. .10. .10. On going through the records and on considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent, I am of the view that the lower appellate courts finding that the plaintiff would be entitled to the easementary right both under prescription and of necessity, is not based upon any evidence. 11. Both in the plaint and the deposition, P.W.1 would state that he has claimed that the suit cart track BC is situate in Government poromboke and not in patta land in the southern portion of S.F.No.109 belonging to the defendants. He would also specifically state in the cross-examination that he would not require any portion in the patta land belonging to the defendants. 12. These things would clearly show that the plaintiff claimed declaration of right of user in the pathway from A to E through BC is on the ground that it is a poromboke land. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that AB, DE and EF is poromboke land. But, it is disputed by the defendants that BC is situate in their land. Even the plaint plan which has been filed by the plaintiff in the present case would show that the suit cart track is situate in S.F.No.109. 13. Under those circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to plead and prove that the suit cart track is in the poromboke and not in the patta land. Though in the oral evidence, the plaintiff as P.W.1 would state that the suit cart track is not in patta land and the suit track has been used by them for 40 years, there is no supporting material placed before the court to establish the same. 14. In such a situation, the revenue records and the details of measurements taken by the Surveyor could have been placed before the court to conclude that the suit cart track is not situate in patta land. But, this was not done. At least an Advocate-Commissioner could have been appointed by the trial court in order to find out whether the suit cart track is in poromboke or not. 15. But, this was not done. At least an Advocate-Commissioner could have been appointed by the trial court in order to find out whether the suit cart track is in poromboke or not. 15. Though it is now argued that the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of Commissioner and the same was opposed and dismissed, the deposition of D.W.1 would show that he would specifically deny the fact that he had opposed the application for appointment of Commissioner, The relevant portion is as follows: 16. When the claim is for declaration of the right to use the cart track contending that it is in poromboke land and the same has been used for a long number of years, the lower appellate court ought to have considered as to whether the decree for right to use the suit cart track could be passed in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit cart track is in poromboke land. On the other hand, the observation which has been made by the lower appellate court as given below, is not correct: “It must be borne in mind that the cart track is not in existence exclusively in the patta land of the first defendant. Even according to the first defendant it is mostly in poromboke land and only in the BC portion it is in patta land. The first defendant has not established the said portion is in his patta land. Even assuming for a moment that the suit portion is in patta land, the existence of cart track in the portion BC connecting the cart track in poromboke portion in a well defined manner will indicate the user of the same by the plaintiff and their predecessors-in-title for more than the statutory period and thereby the plaintiff is having right to the user of the disputed portion also for reaching their land.” 17. It is settled law that when the plea of the plaintiff that the suit cart track is in poromboke and not in patta land belonging to the defendants, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the same. Strangely the lower appellate court has given a finding that the first defendant has not established that the suit cart track is in his patta land. Strangely the lower appellate court has given a finding that the first defendant has not established that the suit cart track is in his patta land. It has given a further finding that even assuming that the suit track is in patta land, the said portion is a well defined cart track and so, it would indicate the user of the same for more than the statutory period. This finding is based upon no evidence. 18. Instead of deciding the issue on the basis of the pleadings and testimony of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court granted a decree based on assumed easementary right of the plaintiff over the suit cart track even in the absence of the pleadings and contrary to the testimony of the plaintiff. who would state that he would not require any portion of the land belonging to the defendants. 19. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the easementary right are well-settled. It is necessary that the plaintiff should establish his case as required by law before he can claim a right of easement over the land. Sec.15 of the Easements Act provides that where a right of way has been peacefully and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto as an easement, and as of right without interruption, and for twenty years, the right would be established. It is also necessary for the plaintiff to establish that he openly enjoyed this right and that he did so as of right. 20. The object of the section in requiring that the user should be open is that it must be of a nature from which a presumption would arise that the owner of the land had knowledge that his land was being so used, and that he had acquiesced in it. 21. No doubt, it is true that in one paragraph of the plaint it is averred claiming easementary right both by prescription and necessity. The very claim by prescription and necessity is itself inconsistent. An easement of necessity means an easement without which the property cannot be used at all. Mere convenience is not the test of an easement of necessity. A man cannot acquire a right of way as an easement of necessity, if he has got other means of access to his land, however, more inconvenient it may be than by passing over the land of neighbours. 22. Mere convenience is not the test of an easement of necessity. A man cannot acquire a right of way as an easement of necessity, if he has got other means of access to his land, however, more inconvenient it may be than by passing over the land of neighbours. 22. An easement of necessity is not to be granted merely on the ground of convenience and advantage, but solely on the ground of absolute necessity. In other words, when there are other ways of ingress and egress, an easement of necessity cannot be claimed merely on the ground that such ways are inconvenient. 23. It is a well established rule that ordinarily a court should find a case and decree the suit only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. In a case, where the claim is for an easement right, it is all the more necessary that the pleadings should be specific and precise. The right of easement is one which a person claims over a land which is not his own. The qualitative and quantitative requirement for the different kinds of easements are to a great extent mutually exclusive. That is the reason why the courts have always insisted that whenever a right of easement is claimed, the pleadings should be precise and clear and not vague. 24. These principles have been laid down in the following decisions: (1) Ramachandra v. Hari A.I.R. 1929 Bom. 144; (2) Nanjammal v. Marappa Gounder (1998)1 MLJ. 151 ; (3) Ibrahimkutty Koyakutty v. Abdul Rahumankunju Ibrahimkutty A.I.R. 1993 Ker. 91. 25. The lower appellate court without considering the guidelines and principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, decreed the suit mainly on the ground that since AB, CD and DE are situate, admittedly, in poromboke land, the BC also shall be construed to be situate in poromboke land. This approach is quite erroneous. 26. Furthermore, one other important admission made by P.W.1 in cross-examination has been over-looked. The relevant portion of the evidence is as follows: Thus, the reading of the entire deposition including the statement referred to above, would clearly indicate that there is another way in the Odai poromboke itself through which the plaintiff can reach his land. But, unfortunately, the lower appellate court did not take into consideration the materials and rejected the evidence of the first defendant and decreed the suit. But, unfortunately, the lower appellate court did not take into consideration the materials and rejected the evidence of the first defendant and decreed the suit. 27. The trial court dismissed the suit on the following three grounds: .• (1) The claim of declaration without impleading the Government cannot be maintained. .• (2) Inthe oral evidence, the plaintiff states that the cart track in the portion BC is in poromboke and is not in patta land and the plaintiff is not claiming any portion of patta land of the defendant and it is not established that the cart track in the portion BC is in poromboke and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration and injunction prayed for. .• (3) Further, the plaintiff has not claimed in the prayer portion that he has got easementary right of way and there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the plaintiff enjoyed the cart track in the portion BC from the time immemorial and prescribed right of way over the portion BC. 28. No doubt, it is true that the first ground may not hold good, in view of the fact that the Government cannot be considered to be a necessary party to be impleaded, since no relief was sought for as against the Government. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit on the said ground, in my view, may not be valid. But, other two grounds for dismissal of the suit could not be said to be invalid, as, in my view, the trial court has considered the evidence in entirety and come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out the case to grant the reliefs sought for in the suit. 29. In view of the above discussion, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. No costs.