10.In the light of the abovesaid admitted facts and in particular, when Exs.A1 & A2 partition deeds had clearly provided for 3 muzham and 4 muzham pathways for the sharers to gain access to their respective properties and the pathway abovenoted are only earmarked for serving their agricultural needs, in such view of the matter, though in Ex.A1 partition deed, the 3 muzham was earmarked only for taking cattle etc., however, when the pathway under Exs.A1 & A2 are earmarked and intended only for the sharers to carry on their agricultural operations in the various shares allotted to them and accordingly, the width of the pathway also further extended to 4 muzham under Ex.A2 partition deed, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are totally justified in holding that the first defendant is entitled to take cart, tractor, lorry, etc., through the said pathway for the purpose of carrying out his agricultural activities and merely because, no specific mention has been made in the above partition deeds about taking of carts, lorries, tractors, etc., that by itself would not in any manner hinder the first defendant in taking the same through the pathway above pointed out and as rightly pointed out by the Courts below merely because the advocate commissioner, who had inspected the properties, had not noted the signs of wheel marks in the pathway, that alone would not disentitle the first defendant from taking the lorries, carts, tractors in the abovesaid pathway and as abovenoted, when the pathway had been earmarked for the purpose of engaging in the agricultural activities. When the first defendant's father had admittedly acquired the property from Kuppusamy under Ex.B1 sale traction and when there is a reference about the entitlement of the first defendant's father to use the pathway already in existence and when the pathway as abovenoted i.e. 3 muzham pathway and 4 muzham pathway had been specifically earmarked under Exs.A1 & A2
