JUDGMENT :- 1. This Second appeal is focussed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2011 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, in A.S.No.85 of 2010 in confirming the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2010 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, in O.S.No.1075 of 2004, which was one for permanent injunction. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3.Compendiously and concisely the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (a) The original plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of injunction in respect of the first item of the suit property to the effect that the defendants 1 and 2 should not interfere with the said item in any manner. In respect of the second item of the suit property is concerned, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction to preserve the alleged cart track existing on ground and that the defendants 1 and 2 should not in any manner interfere with the right of enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff and that the defendants 3 and 4-the public officials should not give any patta exclusively in the name of defendant No.1. (b) The warp and woof of the averments in the plaint could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The property described in the first schedule exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. The second item of the suit property is being used as common cart track for over six decades by the plaintiff as well as the other villagers and that the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to demolish the cart track existing in the second item of the suit property and thereby prevent the plaintiff from enjoying it as cart track. 4. Challenging and impugning, inveighing and refuting the averments/allegations in the plaint, the first defendant filed the written statement, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The averments in the plaint are fraught with falsity and mendacity and it is nothing but a load of baloney. (ii) The second item of the suit property cannot be termed as a cart track under the use of the plaintiff or any of the villagers as it happened to be the exclusive property of D1. (ii) The second item of the suit property cannot be termed as a cart track under the use of the plaintiff or any of the villagers as it happened to be the exclusive property of D1. (iii) There is no such cart track in the second item of the suit property which belongs exclusively to the defendant No.1 and at no point of time the plaintiff or anybody else enjoyed the alleged cart track for ingress and egress to their respective places. (iv) To the East of S.No.233/8B, two Survey Nos. i.e., S.Nos.233/5 and 233/9 are situated and to the East of those lands S.No.236/6 is situated. To put it in single syllable words, the lands, S.No.233/5 and 233/9 are situated in between the S.No.233/8B and S.No.236/6. (v) The land bearing S.No.236 belongs to the plaintiff and there is no whisper in the plaint as to how the plaintiff, who is owning land in S.No.236, could have ingress and egress to his land through the alleged cart track situated in S.No.233/8B, when there are two lands bearing S.Nos.233/5 and 233/9 are situated in between them. (vi) In fact the plaintiff has been using the channel which is situated to the South of S.No.242/1 so as to reach his land in S.No.242/2 and thereafter to his one other land in S.No.236. (vii) The second item of the suit property belongs to D1 and the plaintiff is having no right over it. 5. D3-the public official filed the written statement on his behalf and on behalf of D4, refuting and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint. 6. Whereupon issues were set down for trail. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.2 along with one Ramakrishnan-the Revenue Official as D.W.1 and D.Ws.3 and 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B11. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court exhibits. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court exhibits. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of both the fora below, this second appeal has been focussed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: (a) When the respondents have admitted the right and title of the appellants over suit item 1 in paragraph 3 of the written statement, are the Courts below correct in law in not granting decree even with respect to suit item 1, in total disregard to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which mandates that judgment can be rendered on the basis of admission? (B) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court bereft of points for determination as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure, is sustainable in law? (C) Whether the courts below are correct in law in ignoring the admissions made by D.W s 1 to 4 which would clearly establish the case of the appellants, particularly when it is axiomatic that admission of the opposite party, is the best evidence in law? (D) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in brushing aside the exhibits A1 to A5 material documents and the evidence of P.W s 1 to 3 which clearly and cogently establish the right and title of the appellants over the suit properties? (E) Whether the courts below are correct in law in misconstruing the evidence of P.W.1, as though he admitted that there is no cart track in suit item 2, especially when the evidence of a party has to be construed in its entirety? (F) Whether the suit for bare injunction regarding right to use the cart track can be maintained without seeking the relief of declaration? (extracted as such) 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) Ignoring the observations made by the Advocate Commissioner in his report and sketch, both the Courts below simply discarded and rejected the genuine case of the plaintiff. (extracted as such) 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) Ignoring the observations made by the Advocate Commissioner in his report and sketch, both the Courts below simply discarded and rejected the genuine case of the plaintiff. (ii) The perusal of the depositions on both sides would exemplify and demonstrate that there exists a cart track. In fact, D1 in his deposition plainly admitted about the existence of the cart track. Accordingly he would pray for setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and for decreeing the suit as prayed for. 10. Whereas, the learned counsel for D1 in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiff would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The plaint is as silent as silence could be in respect of the right of the plaintiff. There is nothing to indicate and exemplify as to how the plaintiff could claim right over the second item of the suit property when in fact it belongs to D1. (ii) Both the fora below correctly appreciated the germane facts and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff warranting no interference in second appeal. 11. I would like to fumigate my mind with the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2012(8) SCC 148 [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another]. 12. A mere running of the eye over the above precedents would connote and denote, exemplify and demonstrate that unless there is any substantial question of law is involved, the question of upsetting the finding of the court below would not arise. 13. Keeping in mind the dictum as found enunciated in the aforesaid precedents of the Supreme Court, I would like to analyse the records. 14. A mere poring over and perusal of the available records would exemplify and demonstrate that the first defendant correctly raised the objection in the written statement itself as to how the plaintiff could claim right of pathway or right over the cart track allegedly situated in S.No.233/8B when the plaintiff's land itself is situated in S.No.236 which is two survey numbers away towards East of S.No.233/8B. Over and above that, S.No.242 is also not situated nearby the second item of the suit property. Over and above that, S.No.242 is also not situated nearby the second item of the suit property. 15. I could see considerable force in such a contention, because, there is no cogency or consistency in the stand of the plaintiff. A mere running of the eye over the depositions of P.W.1 as well as D.W.2(D1) would exemplify and demonstrate that the plaintiff as P.W.1 contrary to his averments deposed before Court, cross-examined D.W.2. There is no whisper in the plaint that the second item of the suit property belonged to Panchayat or to the Government. However, during cross-examination of D.W.2(D1), it was suggested by the plaintiff to the effect that the said cart track belongs to the Panchayat. 16. I recollect the maxim: "Allegans contraria non est audiendus'- A person making contradictory allegations is not to be heard. There should be consistent stand on the part of the plaintiff. 17. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the one other maxim 'Judicis est judicare secundum allegata et probata' – It is the proper role of a judge to decide according to the allegations and proofs. 18. As such, throwing to winds those maxims, the plaintiff simply approached the Court as though he is having right over the alleged cart track. 19. I call up and recollect one other maxim 'Ubi jus, ibi remedium' – W here there is a right, there is a remedy and as such, the plaintiff should have specifically pleaded and proved about his right over the said cart track. 20. No doubt, during the cross-examination of D.W.2(D1) certain photos were shown to D1, who would observe that it was a pathway. Simply because of that, the Court cannot be asked to jump to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff was proved by him. 21. Even though in the plaint, baldly it is found averred that for over two decades the second item of the suit property had been under the use of the plaintiff and other villages as cart track, there is no proof to that effect. 22. Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act,1882, could be recollected at this juncture, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference. 22. Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act,1882, could be recollected at this juncture, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference. "Sec.15.Acquisition by prescription– Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where support from one person's land, or things affixed thereto, has been peaceably received by another person's land subjected to artificial pressure or by things affixed thereto, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such access and use of light or air, support or other easement, shall be absolute. Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested." 23. If there is specific proof to the effect that for over 20 years continuously a land has been used as pathway or cart track then in that case, the party concerned would be justified in asserting his right of easement by prescription over that land. But absolutely there is no shard or shred, jot or molecular, iota or miniscule extent of evidence in that regard. 24. P.W.3-the Panchayat President would claim as though the second item of the suit property forms part of one 'Thaneer Pandhal to Kundrathur Murugan Road'. If that be so, the Panchayat record should reveal that it belongs to the Panchayat and that should have got reflected in the Revenue map as pathway as well. But D.W.1-the Revenue Official would state that there is no such pathway in the second item of the suit property as per revenue records. 25. All told, both the Courts below taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter, au fait with law and au courant with facts rejected the prayer of the plaintiff, warranting no interference in second appeal. I could see no perversity or illegality also in such finding. 26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.