JUDGMENT : The defendants, who lost the case before both the Courts below, have come forward with this second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 18.04.2006 made in A.S. No. 137 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 made in O.S. No. 702 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. 2. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of easementary right of necessity in respect of third schedule property and also injunction restraining the defendants, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the road and also declaration that they are entitled to use the third schedule property through the second schedule property and also for injunction restraining them not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment stating that that the suit has been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. for representative capacity. The third schedule property is a government poramboke, where the first schedule property is situated in S. No. 701/3, which contain total extent of 2 acre 5 cents, abutting to second and third schedule properties, where the plaintiffs and others were made construction of their houses and enjoying the same. 3. The plaintiffs and the residents of eastern side and western side of first schedule property were using the third schedule property viz., mud road, to reach Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi main road and they are enjoying the same for past 35 years. Water connection and electricity service connection has been given only in the third schedule property. In between the first and third schedule property, second schedule property is situated. The plaintiff is entitled to reach the third schedule property only through the second schedule property. These two schedules are situated at the edge of S. No. 712 and it contains only 4 acres and 75 cents and they have reached the other Government offices through the said pathway. Now the defendants 2 and 3 have attempted to put up a compound wall, which will prevent the residents of the place, who used the same as pathway to reach the Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi main road and hence, they constrained to file the suit for the above stated relief. 4. Now the defendants 2 and 3 have attempted to put up a compound wall, which will prevent the residents of the place, who used the same as pathway to reach the Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi main road and hence, they constrained to file the suit for the above stated relief. 4. Resisting the same,the first defendant filed a detailed written statement stating that the plaintiffs have no right over the third schedule property and they are not entitled to claim easementary right. First plaintiff is encroached upon S. No. 712/5 and made a compound wall. In June 2003, Keelapavoor Panchayat Union has attempted to put up main road and that has been intimated to Commissioner and that has been stopped and there was no mud road. In S. No. 712/2, out of 8.81.5 hectare, 1.93.0 hectare land has been allotted to construct for Government Primary Health Centre. Prior to that objection has been called for and since no one has objected for the same, the land was transferred to construct Primary Health Centre along with 30 beds. Because of the filing of the suit, it was prevented and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court, after considering the averments in both the plaint and written statement, framed necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence and considering the arguments made on either side, granted decree, against which, the first defendant has preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed, against which, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law has been framed for consideration of the second appeal: “Whether the Courts below are correct in granting the relief sought for in the plaint even though the plaintiffs are not entitled to exercise easementary right over the suit second and third schedule of properties?” Substantial Question of Law No. 1: 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the property is a government land, which was allotted to the appellants for public purpose for making construction of Primary Health Centrre. The appellants have filed Exs.B1 to B8 to show that the third schedule property is not shown as pathway in F.M.B and Adangal also has been marked. The appellants have filed Exs.B1 to B8 to show that the third schedule property is not shown as pathway in F.M.B and Adangal also has been marked. The suit has not been properly valued and the plaintiffs are having alternative pathway and that factum was not considered by the trial Court. He has further submitted that Exs.C1 and C2 viz., Commissioners plan and report would show that there is an alternative pathway and that has been used by the plaintiffs and that factum was not considered by the Court below and since there is alternative way is available to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled easement of necessity and hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of both the courts below. 8. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the third schedule property is 20x500 feet and 2nd schedule property is 20x400 feet and in the second schedule property, so many encroachers have made construction and 'B' memo has been issued by government and penal kist has also been recovered. He has further submitted that except second and third schedule property road, no other pathway is there to reach the Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi road. To reach the government hospital and other government offices and also to reach the Pavoorchatram - Tankasi main road, the Kamaraj Nagar People and other people used third schedule property alone and that has been considered by both the Courts below and the commissioner plan has categorically proved that except this pathway i.e., third schedule property, no other pathway is available for the persons residing in the northen side of the Kamaraj Nagar and hence, he prayed for confirming the decree and judgment of both the Courts below. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the documents available on record. 10. Exs.A1 to A5 are the documents to show that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are having property on the southern side of the second and third schedule properties. Second and third schedule properties are government land. S. No. 712 has been situated in northern edge of second and third schedule properties. 10. Exs.A1 to A5 are the documents to show that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are having property on the southern side of the second and third schedule properties. Second and third schedule properties are government land. S. No. 712 has been situated in northern edge of second and third schedule properties. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, the second schedule property, which is abutting the property, where the plaintiffs and other residents of Kamaraj Nagar are residing, is government poramboke, it is in occupation of some of the encroachers and the encroachers were recognized by way of issuing 'B' memo. Therefore, to reach Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi Main Road, they have to use the east-west road i.e. third schedule property. 11. Now, the existence of pathway is not disputed. The only point to be decided as to whether the respondents are entitled easement of necessity. The Commissioner's report shows that except second and third schedule properties, no other alternative road is available. It is true there is one pathway between first schedule property and Pechimithu Asari's house and two feet road is available there, which is ended in second schedule property. However, it is not lead to Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi main road. 12. Perusal of the commissioner's plan would show that there is no alternative pathway available for the respondents, who are residing in the northern side of Kamaraj Nagar to reach the main road. It is pertinent to note that in the plan, in the third schedule property which is shown as C-D, electricity poles are available and that was mentioned P3 and P4. The poles P1 and P2 are erected in second schedule property. The appellants have filed Ex.B1, proceedings of the Collector, Tirunelveli, dated 11.12.2000, wherein, the land to the extent of 8.81.5 hectare, situated in S. No. 712/5 has been transferred for the construction of Government Primary Health Centre. Ex.B2 is the xerox copy of sub division statement of Kulasekarapatti village, wherein it is stated that in S.No.712/2, the land to the extent of 8.81.5 hectares is a dry land, which was not assessed to tax. Ex.B3 to B6 are F.M.B. It is true, in Exs.B3 to B6, no detained pathway has been mentioned. It is well settled that unless a detained pathway is demarcated, then only, it is found place in A-Register and also in revenue records. Ex.B3 to B6 are F.M.B. It is true, in Exs.B3 to B6, no detained pathway has been mentioned. It is well settled that unless a detained pathway is demarcated, then only, it is found place in A-Register and also in revenue records. Since, it is a government poramboke and even today, it is a mud road used by the residents of northern side of Kamaraj Nagar to reach Pavoorchatram - Tenkasi Road, non mentioning the road in Ex.sB3 to 5 will not be taken away the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs. 13. The appellants have filed Ex.B6, xerox copy of 'A' register of S. No. 711/2 to S. No. 720 of Kulasekarappatti village, wherein, it is stated that the land to the extent of 11.32.0 hectare in S. No. 712 has not been assessed to tax and it is a dry land. Exs.B7 and B8 are adangal, in which, it has been stated that S. No. 712/1 was in possession of somebody viz., Rathinasamy Paulraj and Mariappan and 'B' memo has been mentioned and that has also been evidence. Ex.B8 adangal also would show that S. No. 712/5 and 712/6 have been allotted for construction of Government Primary Health Centre and S. No. 712/2, which is a dry land has not been assessed to tax and S. No. 712/13 has been allotted to police department and S. No. 712/10 has been allotted to Combined Nutritious Office and S. No. 712/2 has been allotted to Backward Class Boys Hostel. Those properties are situated on the south of the Kamaraj Nagar and hence, if the residents of Kamaraj Nagar want to visit the government offices, they ought to have reach the same only through the third schedule property. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that except the pathway in third schedule property, no other pathway is available to the respondent to reach the said places. Therefore, I am of the view that both the Courts have considered all the aspects and have correctly held that there is no alternative pathway and hence, they are entitled easement of necessity and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below does not warrant any interference. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. Therefore, I am of the view that both the Courts have considered all the aspects and have correctly held that there is no alternative pathway and hence, they are entitled easement of necessity and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below does not warrant any interference. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. Even though, second schedule property has been described as 20 x 400 feet and third schedule property has been described as 20 x 500 feet, in the commissioner's plan, the Commissioner has stated that the north south width of second schedule property is only 16 feet and north south width of third schedule property is only 10 feet instead of 20 feet in both second and third schedule properties and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to use second and third schedule properties as mentioned in the commissioner's plan. 15. In view of the answer given above, I am of the view that the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are liable to be confirmed and consequently, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the second appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.