JUDGMENT

Banerjee and Rampini, JJ. - This appeal arises out of a suit for the declaration of a right of way, and for the removal of certain obstructions alleged to have been made by the defendants.

2. Three points have been raised by the learned Vakil for the plaintiff appellant. First, that upon the findings arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree quite irrespective of Section 26 of the Limitation Act, on the ground that the claim was one that the plaintiff was entitled to make under an implied grant presumable from what is known as: "Disposition of the owner of two tenements;" secondly, that the Lower Appellate Court is in error in throwing upon the plaintiff the burden of proof upon the question whether the user was "as of right;" and, thirdly, that upon the findings arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court, even if the plaintiff was not entitled to a right of way for marriage and funeral processions, he was at least entitled to an ordinary right of way.

3. In support of the first contention raised, it is argued that as the tenement belonging to the plaintiff, and the tenement over which the right of way is claimed, belonged originally to one