Judgment 1. Plaintiff, who failed before both the courts is the appellant in the second appeal. 2. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed the abovesaid suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with item 2 of the suit property either in cutting the existing trees or to lay any claim over the item 2 property. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:- The suit properties viz., items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule belongs to the plaintiff having been allotted to him in a family partition. Defendants, who are adjacent land owners, have no right over the same. They have alternative way to access their lands. The plaintiff had planted coconut trees and palm trees adjacent to the fence. On 31.12.1993, the defendants had cut 12 coconut trees from item 2 of the suit property. Hence, the suit had been filed for permanent injunction. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents herein by filing written statement as follows:- The suit property viz., R.S.No.479/2 is a cart track which had been used for a long time by the defendants and the adjacent land owners. It had been sub-divided as such in the revenue records. The plaintiff has no right to alter the breadth of the same or to interfere with enjoyment of the same by others. The said property had been meant only for cart track. The defendants have got right over the same by easement, prescription, necessity, grant and by long user and they have been in adverse possession of the same. The plaintiff, with the intention to block the cart track, had attempted to plant the coconut trees, for which he has no right. The plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands. The suit, framed for permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration, is not maintainable. The suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. 4. The Trial Judge framed two issues which are as follows:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 2) To what other relief? 5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and 17 documents were marked on his side. Two witnesses were examined and 27 documents were marked on the side of the defendants. Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 2) To what other relief? 5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and 17 documents were marked on his side. Two witnesses were examined and 27 documents were marked on the side of the defendants. Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The Trial Court, on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding of the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. The second appeal has been admitted identifying the following questions to be the substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal: i) Whether the courts below are right in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction especially when the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff would conclusively prove the plaintiff's exclusive possession of the suit property? ii) Are the courts below justified in finding that the defendants are entitled to use the suit property by way of easement by prescription especially when the defendants in their written statement claimed title (right) over the suit property? iii) Whether the lower appellate court, being the final court of fact, is justified in rejecting the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant herein on flimsy grounds and the same are perverse and legally unsustainable? 7. The arguments advanced by Mr. A.K. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr. T. Murugamanickam on behalf of the respondents are heard in detail. The materials available on record are also perused. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the defendants have no right over the suit property when the plaintiff has exclusive possession of the same. 9. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that the suit cart track is the only access to the respondents' lands and the adjacent land owners and they have got right over the same by easement by prescription, necessity, grant and by long user and hence, they have been in adverse possession of the same and the suit was filed only with false allegations with the intention of preventing them from using the suit cart track which was properly found by the courts below and hence, the concurrent finding of the courts below need not be interfered with. 10. 10. The suit is one for the relief of permanent injunction. Of course, the plaintiff has filed sale deed, Ex.A2 and other documents to prove his title and possession. But, his allegation is that the defendants have cut the coconut trees planted in the suit property. On appointment of advocate commissioner, the commissioner had visited the site and filed his report to the effect that he found fresh pits and not the old pits wherefrom coconut trees were removed. The defendants have not denied the joint use of the suit cart track, but, have claimed only easementary right and they do not claim any right over the suit property as alleged by the plaintiff/appellant. The courts below have also found that the private complaint lodged against the defendants ended in acquittal in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gobichettipalayam and no action has been initiated on the police complaint lodged against the defendants in this regard and the plaintiff also had not taken any steps to mark any document in this regard. Hence, the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff has not proved his case to seek permanent injunction. Hence, all the three substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant and the judgment and decree of the courts below do not warrant any interference. In the result, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.