14.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs are not clear in their pleadings whether the suit pathway is a common cart track or a public cart track. From the pleadings, it could be seen that the plaintiffs are really claiming a public cart track for the benefit of the villagers since the present suit has been filed in the representative capacity of the villagers. The plaintiffs have contended that the suit cart track runs through Survey Nos. 36, 37, 38, 167 and 168. However, the Advocate Commissioner has specifically found that the alleged cart track does not run through the Survey Nos.36 and 37. A perusal of the commissioner's plan would indicate that the plaintiffs' case in the plaint has been falsified by the commissioner's report. That apart, the plaintiffs have identified some portions of the properties as a cart track and requested the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. The Advocate Commissioner has not considered the sale deed of the defendants or the records. That apart, none of the plaintiffs have produced their title deeds to show that they have parted with their lands to create a common cart track. If they have produced their title deeds, it would be evidenced whether any cart track runs on their eastern boundary. However, none of the plaintiffs or villagers have chosen to produce their sale deeds to show that the common cart track which is the alleged to be in existence for more than 500 years .
