Kandaswamy based on Ex.A2, as such, cannot be countenanced in any manner. Similarly when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that any cart track right had been allotted to the first plaintiff over the lands belonging to Kandaswamy under Ex.A2 panchayat muchalika, the case projected by the plaintiffs that the defendants have admitted the existence of the cart track by way of the Assurance Deed marked as Ex.A7 also cannot be believed and accepted. As rightly put forth by the defendants' counsel, even in Ex.A7 Assurance Deed, it has been only recited that by way of Ex.A2 Muchilika the parties had agreed to form a cart track/pathway right and as above pointed out, when there is no material on the part of the plaintiffs pointing that any cart track / pathway right had been since formed by the parties concerned, the question of the plaintiffs claiming the cart track right over the lands belonging to Kandasamy, cannot at all be believed and accepted. As rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, if really the Assurance Deed Ex.A7 has any element of truth, the same would have been reflected in the legal notice sent by the plaintiffs marked as Ex.A9. However, no reference is made about the Assurance Deed in Ex.A9 legal notice. Be that as it may, when the existence of the suit cart track, as depicted in the plaint sketch, is not shown to be in existence at the time when Ex.A2 panchayat muchilika has been effected and as above pointed out under Ex.A2 panchayat muchilika, the parties thereto only agreed to form the pathway for gaining access to the first plaintiff's land and when their abovesaid agreement of forming a pathway has not been shown to be put in action by the respective parties, resultantly, it has to be held that the plaintiffs' claim of cart track or pathway right over the lands belonging to Kandaswamy cannot be accepted based upon either Ex.A2 panchayat muchilika or Ex.A7 Assurance deed.
