Judgment :- Common Judgment: The unsuccessful plaintiff viz., Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife another plaintiff viz., Nagarathinam have respectively filed S.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 1994 against the concurrent judgments of the Principal District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam and the Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam respectively in O.S.Nos.92 of 1990, 93 of 1990, A.S.Nos.1 of 1991 and 2 of 1991 in and by which both the courts have dismissed both the suits filed by Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam separately. 2. The suit in O.S.No.92 of 1990 was filed by Karuthiruma Goundar for the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction and the said Nagarathinam filed O.S.No.93 of 1990 for the reliefs of declaration of easementary right and permanent injunction in respect of a pathway marked as ABCD in red colour in the plaint plan with measurements of 13 feet in east west on the north, 16 feet east west on the south, 50 feet north south on east and west bounded by Sathy-Athani main road on the north, by the house of Govindarajan and Jabbar on the west, by the house of Kalki Sundaram and Nagarathinam on the east and by pathway on the south with following common allegations in both the suits. The plaintiff Karuthiruma Goundar and his brother Thangavelu and their mother Venkatammal partitioned the properties on 17.8.1962. In that partition, the suit property as described in the plaint schedule was left out for the purpose of common enjoyment and it was enjoyed by the parties in common. The said Thangavelu settled his share of property in favour of his wife and likewise, the said Karuthiruma Goundar also settled a portion of his share of property in favour of his wife on 30.1.1990. The said Thangavelu and his wife sold a portion of the property in favour of one Venkateswaran son of the defendant Gopalakrishnan after leaving the suit pathway. On the same day, the said Thangavelu sold the common pathway viz., the suit property in common right in favour of the defendant Gopalakrishnan. So, the said Thangavelu had no right to sell the entire common property without referring to the ½ share of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. Since the defendant attempted to block the suit property on 1.2.1990, the said Karuthiruma Goundar happened to file the above said suit. So, the said Thangavelu had no right to sell the entire common property without referring to the ½ share of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. Since the defendant attempted to block the suit property on 1.2.1990, the said Karuthiruma Goundar happened to file the above said suit. Likewise, the above said Nagaraathinam wife of Karuthiruma Goundar filed the other suit by saying that the suit property as common pathway is being enjoyed by them not only on the right of ½ share but also by way of easement of necessity for getting access of bullock carts, cattle etc. 3. Both the suits were resisted by the defendant Gopalakrishnan by filing written statement with the following common allegations. The suits, as such, are not maintainable. It is false to state that the suit property is a common property of Karuthiruma Goundar and his brother Thangavelu. In fact, as per the partition deed dated 17.8.1962, the suit property was allotted to the share of Thangavelu and so, neither Karuthiruma Goundar nor his mother Venkatammal has no manner of right upon the suit property. There is no question of half share for Karuthiruma Goundar nor there is easementary right for Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam. After partition, there is no question of enjoyment of the suit property in common or otherwise by the plaintiffs Karuthiruma Goundar and Nagaraathinam. On the other hand, the said Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagaraathinam were having access straightway to the main road on the north of their property for getting access of bullock carts, etc., and that particularly, they are also having one itteri on the east of their property. It is true that the defendant Gopalakrishnan has purchased the suit property on 3.1.1990 from the said Thangavelu for valuable consideration and it cannot be questioned by the said Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam as if there is common right or easementary right that too when they are having separate way of itteri on the east. Therefore, both the suits are liable to be dismissed. 4. Therefore, both the suits are liable to be dismissed. 4. On joint trial, the Principal District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam has examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 including the plaintiff Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam and two witnesses viz., the defendant and his vendor Thangavelu as D.Ws.1 and 2 besides marking of Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 to B9 and Exs.C1 and C2, has found and come to the conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor his wife Nagarathinam is entitled to common right of half share or easementary right upon the suit property and instead the suit property entirely and exclusively belongs only to the said Thangavelu and then to the purchaser viz., the defendant Gopalakrishnan and consequently dismissed both the suits. 5. On appeal by the said Karuthiruma Goundar and Nagarathinam in A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 1991 on the file of the sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, the Sub Judge also, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available for either side and the other circumstances, has found and come to the conclusion that there is no common right or right of easement for the plaintiff Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam and it exclusively belongs to the defendant Gopalakrishnan and his vendor Thangavelu and consequently dismissed both the appeals by confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif. 6. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available for either side in the light of judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the counsel appearing for either side in detail. I am able to see the following important points for appreciation and conclusion. Both the courts below have elaborately gone through the oral and documentary evidence and considered them in detail and then only have come to the conclusion that both the plaintiffs have no case and consequently dismissed both the suits. There is no dispute between the parties that they partitioned the properties under Ex.A1 dated 29.8.1962. In that partition, A schedule item has been allotted to the plaintiff Karuthiruma Goundar, B schedule item has been allotted to the share of his brother Thangavelu and C schedule item has been allotted to their mother Venkatammal. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that they partitioned the properties under Ex.A1 dated 29.8.1962. In that partition, A schedule item has been allotted to the plaintiff Karuthiruma Goundar, B schedule item has been allotted to the share of his brother Thangavelu and C schedule item has been allotted to their mother Venkatammal. 7. In the description of property allotted to Karuthiruma Goundar under A schedule, it is shown as Further, the description of property shown under B schedule allotted to Thangavelu is shown as So, as per this partition deed, the suit property has been shown as 13 feet path and it has been accepted and recognised to be the property of the said Thangavelu. If it is not so, the description of the property for A schedule and particularly the western boundary need not have been stated asor in the description of property for B schedule (for the second item of B schedule) and particularly the eastern boundary need not have been shown as On the other hand, in ordinary prudence, the said recitals should be as When it is not so, it is reasonable and acceptable that the suit property, as a pathway, has been given only to the share of the said Thangavelu in the partition deed marked as Ex.A1. The reason should be that Karuthiruma Goundar is having access straightway from the main road to his share of property allotted under partition and since the share of property allotted to Thangavelu is behind and south of Karuthiruma Goundar's portion, the suit pathway is a necessity for getting access to Thangavelu's portion from the main road shown as L.F. Road. Therefore, the claim of both the plaintiffs viz., Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam is neither true nor acceptable factually and legally. 8. If ex B1 is perused, I am able to see that it is an agreement of sale between the defendant Gopalakrishnan and the very same Karuthiruma Goundar and Nagarathinam dated 2.6.1972 and it is in respect of the portion allotted to the share of Karuthiruma Goundar under Ex.A1. In the description of property is is shown as This description goes to indicate that the suit path belongs to the said Thangavelu. Likewise, if Ex.B2 is perused, it is also an agreement of sale dated 5.9.1972 between the same defendant Gopalakrishnan and Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam. In the description of property is is shown as This description goes to indicate that the suit path belongs to the said Thangavelu. Likewise, if Ex.B2 is perused, it is also an agreement of sale dated 5.9.1972 between the same defendant Gopalakrishnan and Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam. The description of property therein is shown as This description also goes to indicate that the suit pathway belongs to the said Thangavelu. In this context, it is to be pointed out that if really the suit pathway was treated or spared as common way for the brothers, the description of property under this agreement of sale should be that When it is not so, it is too much on the part of the plaintiff Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife to claim as if the suit pathway is a common property. If Ex.B3 is perused, I am able to see that it is a sale deed executed by the very same Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam in favour of the very same defendant Gopalakrishnan dated 1.2.1973 and the description of property and particularly the western boundary has been shown as Therefore, all these factors cumulatively go to show that the suit pathway is not a common property of Karuthiruma Goundar and Thangavelu and instead it is a properly exclusively belonging to the said Thangavelu alone. In this context, it is also to be pointed out that probably Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife, after having sold away their front portions of the property abetting the L.F. Main Road to third parties, have chosen to make a claim upon the opening of the suit pathway belonging to Thangavelu by way of second thought and ulterior motive without any factual and legal basis. It is more so when the said Thangavelu has sold away the property in favour of the defendant Gopalakrishnan on 3.1.1990 under Ex.A5 sale deed. 9. The above observed aspects have been discussed and considered by both the courts below in detail and then only they have come to the conclusion that both the plaintiffs Karuthiruma Goundar and his wife Nagarathinam have no case and consequently, dismissed both the suits. Therefore, I am of the considered view that both the second appeals have no merits factually or legally in a way inviting this court to interfere with the concurrent judgments of both the courts below. Therefore, I am of the considered view that both the second appeals have no merits factually or legally in a way inviting this court to interfere with the concurrent judgments of both the courts below. Accordingly, both the second appeals fail and the same are dismissed but, without costs.