JUDGMENT : Second Appeal Nos. 582 and 583 of 2005 are directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.Nos.19 of 2004 and A.S.No.17 of 2004 respectively dated 21.12.2004 on the file of Subordinate Court, Vridhachalam, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.623 of 1993 and O.S.No.1027 of 1993 dated 22.01.2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam. 2. The second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law. "a) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in dismissing the suits especially when the respective plaintiffs have proved their easement of necessity as contemplated under Section 13 of the Easements Act? (b) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in overlooking the fact that the respective plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit cart track for time immemorial and have therefore perfected title even by adverse possession? (c) Whether the lower appellate court being the final court of fact is correct in not considering and appreciating the entire evidence on record? 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. On a reading of the materials placed on record, it is found that the suit in O.S. No.623 of 1993 has been laid by the appellant Sellamal for the declaration of easementary right in respect of the suit cart track and also for the relief of permenant injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the same. Similarly, it is found that the other appellant Thangavel has laid a suit in O.S. No.1027 of 1993 against the respondents for the relief of declaration in respect of the suit cart track and also for the relief of permenant injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession and enjoyment of the suit cart track and also further sought a claim of Rs.1,500/- being the value of the trees alleged to have been cut by the respondents belonging to the parties in common. 5. On a reading of the plaint averments of both the suits, it is found that both the appellants had claimed easementary right in respect of the suit cart track only by way of prescription. 5. On a reading of the plaint averments of both the suits, it is found that both the appellants had claimed easementary right in respect of the suit cart track only by way of prescription. It is not the case of the appellants in their suits that they are also claiming the easementary right in respect of the suit cart track on the plea of easement of necessity. Thus, it is found that the plea of claim of easementary right projected by the plaintiff in respect of the suit cart track is only on the basis of prescription. The abovesaid claim of right to the suit cart track by the appellants is stoutly disputed by the respondents and according to the respondents, the appellants have no right, interest or claim to the suit cart track by way of easementary right of prescirption as projected in the suits. Further, it is also pleaded by the respondents that the appellants have other access to reach their respective properties and there is no need on the part of the appellants to enjoy the suit cart track in any manner and accordingly it is stated that the appellants had not been granted any right in respect of the suit cart track in the sale deeds projected by them and therefore sought for dismissal of the appellants' suits. 6. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties, the appellants' case found acceptance by the trial court. However, the first appellate court on an appreciation of the materials placed on record held that the appellants have failed to establish their claim of prescriptive right to the suit cart track as projected by them and accordingly also noting that the appellants have other access to reach their properties, by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissed the suits laid by the appellants. Impugning the same, the present second appeals have been laid. 7. On a perusal of the materials projected by the appellants plus the oral evidence tendered by them in the matter, it is found that as rightly determined by the first appellate court, the appellants have failed to establish their claim of prescriptive title to the suit cart track as projected in the plaint and with reference to the same, the materials put forth by the appellants do not advance their case in any manner. The appellant, Sellammal, examined as PW1 has admitted that in her sale deed obtained from Kaliamurthy there is no reference about the suit cart track and also admitted that she does not know whether the suit cart track has been referred to in her sale deed Ex.A1 and would state that the above fact is known only to her brother Thangavel, the other appellant and also further admitted that she had leased her land and the appellant Thangavel only knows as to the mode of enjoyment by the lessee and accordingly, as rightly determined by the first appellate court, when the sale deed projected by the appellant sellammal does not have reference about the suit cart track and when she has failed to establish her vendor had any right or acquired prescriptive right in respect of the suit cart track and when the appellant has leased out her land purchased under Ex.A1, it is found that the case projected by the appellant that she has been using the suit cart track for having access to her property for more than the statutory period, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner. Further, she has also admitted that she used to visit her land occasionally and at that point of time she used to access her land only through the land of her brother Thangavel and accordingly when there is no need on the part of the appellant to have access through the suit cart track to reach her property, rightly, the first appellate court, not accepting the evidence of PW1 and the sale deed marked as Ex.A1, has negatived the relief of prescriptive easementary right sought for by her in respect of the suit cart track. 8. The appellant Thangavel has been examined as PW2. 8. The appellant Thangavel has been examined as PW2. However, though he would claim that he had been enjoying the suit cart track from the days of his predecessors in title, with reference to the same, there is no acceptable material produced by him and when he has admitted that he has not retained any right over the suit cart track in the sale deed executed by him and when it is found that in the sale transactions effected on the same date, in respect of the suit cart track, there is no mention in any of the sale deeds, barring one sale deed, when it is found that in Ex.A20, there is no reference about using the mammol pathway and further, the same is conspicuously absent in the other sale deed, furthermore the appellant Thangvel having admitted that he has not retained the easementary right in respect of the suit cart track while effecting the sale transaction, accordingly, it is found that the evidence of Thangavel also does not inspire the confidence in the case of the appellants that the suit cart track had been the source of access to reach their properties and the same had been in their usage and in the usage of predecessors in title for more than statutory period. 9. In this connection, it is found, when the materials placed on record go to show that chinnasamy Udayar's land is in between R.S.No.172/1 and the pathway in R.S.No.174 and Chinnasamy Udayar had been reaching his land only through R.S.No.174 pathyway and when it is further seen that the appellant Sellammal has purchased the property in R.S.No.172/1 from Pandian, Son of Chinnasamy Udayar and in the sale deed, the vendor Pandian had described as having claimed right to the alienated property only by way of partition, it is found that, as rightly contended by the respondents, the appellants' predecessors in interest had been reaching their lands only through the pathway in R.S.No.174 and accordingly it is found that the appellant also claiming the title through them, would have been using only the said pathway running through R.S.No.174 and not through the suit cart track as sought to be projected in the matter. 10. 10. The appellants having taken the plea that they had prescribed title to the suit property by way of prescription and when the same is contested by the opponents, as rightly pointed out by the respondents, it is for the appellants to establish the plea projected by them by placing acceptable and reliable materials. It is found that the trial court seems to have been carried by the existence of beaten tyre marks in the suit cart track and thereby proceeded to uphold the prescriptive easementary right of the appellants in respect of the same. The respondents have taken the plea in the written statement that they had cut the trees in the land belonging to them as detailed in the written statement and accordingly they had transported the trees cut by them by way of tempo cart track and on account of the same, it is their case that the beaten tyre marks had been noted by the advocate commissioner, and that by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the cart track is in existance for several years and other than the aforesaid isolated event, it is their case that there had been no necessity for using their land as the cart track and accordingly, it is contended that the observation of the advocate commissioner of the existence of beaten cart track marks on its own would not entitle the appellants to claim the title to the suit cart track on the plea of prescription. Even, as per the commissioner's report and plan it is found that symptoms of tracks is not available in the GH portion and accordingly it is found that the cart track alleged in the suit is not in the constant and continuous use of one and all, particularly, the appellants, and in such view of the matter, when the appellants have projected the case that they had been using the cart track since the days of his predecessors in title for more than 70 years and when the said case of appellants had not been established by them by placing acceptable and reliable materials and when the sale deeds projected by the appellants do not refer to the existence of suit cart track as above discussed and the appellant Thangavel is not shown to have retained the right over the cart track while alienating his properties to others, accordingly, it is found that the first appellate court on the basis of materials placed on record rightly held that the appellants have miserably failed to establish their claim of prescriptive easementary right to the suit cart track. 11. The appellants' counsel contended that the appellate court has failed to hold that the appellants have no other cart track other than the suit cart track for reaching their properties and therefore on the ground of necessity, the appellants should have been granted the appropriate releif by the appellate court. However, when it is not the case of the appellants that they are having easementary claim in respect of the suit cart track on the plea of necessity and on the other hand, when they had projected the claim of only prescriptive easementary right and when they had failed to establish the said right and when on the materials placed on record, it is found that the appellants have other way of access to reach their properties and there is no permenant marks available in the suit cart track to evidence that it has been in constant use of one and all, particularly, the appellants, and accordingly it is found that even on the plea of necessity as such, the appellants could not lay any claim of right to the suit cart track particularly when it is found that they are having other access as above disucssed to reach their lands. 12. 12. The first appellate court, being the final court of facts, is found to have analysed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties in the right perspective and accordingly noting that the appellants have failed to establish their claim of right to the suit cart track either by prescriptive right or as regards the right of easement of necessity, is justified in dismissing the appellants' suits by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. No substantial question of law, in my opinion, is found to be involved in the matter. Be that as it may, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are accordingly answered against the appellants. 13. In conclusion, both the second appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.