defence taken by the respondent, it is for the appellant to establish that the cart track is in existence in the property acquired by the respondent from the appellant's brother, which document has come to be marked as Ex.B2. As rightly determined by the Courts below, it is found that the reference about the cart track in the documents purchased by the appellant is not shown to be relating to the alleged cart track in the property of the respondent. As rightly seen, if really, the cart track had been in existence in the property of the respondent, the same would extend not only through the appellant's property but also extend further west to R.S.No.8/1, lying on the western side. However, according to the appellant, there is no continuity of the cart track from his land to S.F.No.8/1 and this itself would go to show that the plea put forth by the appellant that the cart track had been in existence in the property purchased by the respondent as such is false. As rightly determined by the Courts below, from the FMB's marked in this case, it is found that the cart track is available only in R.S.No.12 as well las in other survey numbers as discussed and pointed out by the Courts below and accordingly, if there had been a cart track in existence in RS.No.8/3, the same would have been reflected in the FMB and RSR extract. However, it is found that the appellant has not chosen to place any material worth acceptance to establish that the cart track had been in existence right from the beginning in RS.No.8/3. Accordingly, it is found that if any such cart track had been available or in existence in R.S.No.8/3, the same would extend to the appellant's property as well as the other survey number adjoining to in R.S.No.8/1. But, when it is seen that the appellant's case itself is that the cart track does not proceed further from his property only belie the appellant's case that the cart track had been in existence in the respondent's property.
