that, the trial court considered that at the time of purchase in the year of 1947, the plaintiffs were given right to use the common passage as well as common well, in which the defendants having put up construction, which needs interference. Furthermore, the original vendor, who purchased the property through Ex.A1 had given common right to both plaintiff and the 1st defendant's husband Duraisamy naicker. Accordingly, the suit was decreed giving a direction to remove the unauthorised construction. Challenging the said findings, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.481 of 2006 before the IV Fast Track Court, Chennai, wherein the first appellate judge independently analysed the evidence on record and elaborately discussed about the property description, finally made an observation that on perusal of Ex.A1 parent document, he was not able to find out any common passage, at the same time, while selling the property to 1st defendant through Ex.A3 a common passage was sold, but only the said common passage was shown as one of the boundary. Therefore, the alleged passage leading to the Well is excluded in Ex.A3. Hence, the plaintiffs, by virtue of sale deeds relied by them, have no right to claim that it is a common passage.
