Nos. 328/1B and 328/1C. Hence, it is not right to assert that there is Cart Track along the western boundary of Survey No.318; it is only a footpath. However, it does not affect the substance of the plaintiffs’ case. In fact, it supports the case of the plaintiffs as they could not have used a footpath for practicing agriculture and building houses in their properties. Thus, they must have had some other way to access the Suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties, which is the Cart Track branching off from Pattanam to Kakaveri Main road running along the northern boundary of defendants’ land viz., Survey No.318/2 to reach the northern boundary of plaintiffs’ land in Survey No.318/13. The defendants had obstructed the portion of it running along their property viz., Survey No.318/2 (said defendants’ Cart Track). Though the plaintiffs appear to describe the Suit Cart Track as a common Cart Track wherein the plaintiffs have a share, a comprehensive reading of the plaint and the evidence would show that the plaintiffs are claiming mere easementary right over the same. The plaintiffs cannot claim title over the said defendants Cart Track, but as detailed above, they have easementary right over the same. The defendants have merely denied the plaintiffs’ title without any proper effort much less evidence. In these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that such name sake denials do not require the relief of declaration to be sought for by the plaintiffs.
