8.As above noted, the trail court has determined that the plaintiff is entitled to claim easementary right over the suit property by way of necessity also, however, the first appellate court has reversed the abovesaid finding of the trial court on the footing that the plaintiff is found to have admitted that she had been, of late, using the property belonging to Narayanasamy for gaining access to her property and accordingly noting that the plaintiff has other mode of access to reach her property, on that basis, the first appellate court held that the right of easement claimed by the plaintiff over the suit property by way of necessity cannot be sustained and negatived the said relief. However, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, the abovesaid determination of the first appellate court cannot be countenanced. It is found that inasmuch as the defendants resisted the plaintiff's usage of the suit property as a way for gaining access to her property, it is seen that the plaintiff had requested Narayanasamy to permit her to use his property for reaching her property and accordingly, on Narayanasamy granting the permission, it is found that, of late, the plaintiff has been using the property of Narayanasamy as a mode of access to reach her property. But, once the permission granted by Naraya Samy is revoked, it is found that,
