1. This second appeal is by defendant 1 against the judgment of affrmance. The plaintiffs originally prayed by way of reliefs 1 and 2 as follows:-

(i) that the Court be pleased to pass a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from obstructing the suit land from user as a path or passage by construction of a wall over it or by any other manner in plaintiffs favour against defendants 1 and 2;

(ii) that if in the meantime, the defendants complete the obstruction, the decree may be passed to remove the obstruction and to bring the suit land to its original condition, prohibiting the defendants permanently from obstructing the suit land, in plaintiffs favour against defendants 1 and 2.

2. It seems, the plaint was later amended and after relief (ii) (mentioned above) the relief (ia) was allowed to be added, which is as follows :

"ia. that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiffs got title and possession as their Kast land or in the alternative got customary right of easement and are entitled to recover possession by removal of the structure made by the defendants."

3. Thus, the suit was for a declaration of title and recovery of