The lower Appellate Court failed to consider the Commissioner Report Ex.C1, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff can reach Madurai Mandapam National Highways Road through the suit property. The First Appellate Court failed to note that P.W.3/Surveyor, has clearly deposed that the common path way is mentioned in the revenue records and the plaintiff is entitled to use the same. The First Appellate Court failed to consider that the suit property is situated in Survey No.360. The First Appellate Court failed to consider that the defendants admitted the availability of the path way, but, only denied the fact that the plaintiff is entitled to use the common pathway, and that the house of the plaintiff is situated immediately on the Northern side of the first defendant's house and that the plaintiff is having a door way on the Eastern side of the house and he is using that doorway to pass through the common path way to reach Madurai Mandapam National Highways. The First Appellate Court failed to note that there is a drainage channel on the Northern side and that the plaintiff cannot use the pathway on the Northern side of the house and he can use only the suit common pathway. The lower Appellate Court failed to note Ex.A16, agreement between Aranmanai Kulandai and Meenambal regarding the useage of the suit pathway. The said Aranmanai Kulandai is the father of the first defendant and the said agreement clearly proves the existence of the common pathway. The First Appellate Court failed to note that the suit pathway and other portions were Government Poromboke for a long time and subsequently, the Government granted house site pattas to the occupants of the houses. The lower Appellate Court failed to note that electric posts were put up in the suit property since it is a Government Poromboke and that the suit property is a common pathway.
