( 1 ) THIS appeal from Order is filed by the appellant who is the original plaintiff and who has constructed a theatre in the name of Lalit Mahal at Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant-plaintiff, in short, was that he had purchased 3,025 square yards of land out of the land bearing survey No. 256, situated in the Sim of village Ranip, from one Prabhudas Keshavdas Patel, for the purpose of constructing a cinema theatre. Before constructing the said cinema theatre, the plaintiff had applied for no Objection certificate and, therefore, a public notice was issued by the Commissioner of Police in the newspaper. Thereafter, no objection certificate was granted to the appellant-plaintiff, and the said land was also allowed to be converted into non-agricultural use. When the theatre was ready, the plaintiff applied for electric connection from the Electricity Company, as well as for supply of water connection from the Municipality. When the electricity Companys men tried to instal the cables for the electric connection, the employees and servants of the Food Corporation of India (respondent-defendant) obstructed them from passing through the Asphalt road leading to the cinema theatre of the plaintiff, on the ground that the said road was of the ownership of the defendant-Corporation alone and the same was purchased by them and the plaintiff was not entitled to use the said strip of land. According to the plaintiff, this was the only approach road to go to the cinema theatre premises, and that the plaintiff and his predecessors in title were using the said road since a number of years, and thus they had acquired easement rights over the said road, and under the circumstances, the defendant-Corporation had no right to obstruct the plaintiff or his servants from going to and coming from the theatre by the said road.

( 3 ) NO doubt, in the plaint, the plaintiff has not admitted that the defendant-Corporation had become the owner of the adjoining land and the said road. The contention was that originally there was a railway line and a culvert and that the plaintiff and other persons were using the said road since a number of years, and have acquired a right of easement over the said land and, therefore, the defendant-Corporation cannot obstruct the plaintiff from exercising that right.

( 4 ) IN reply to the aforesaid averments of the plaintiff, the defendant-Corporation had in terms stated in para 11 of its written statement, which has not been correctly reproduced by the appellate Court in its judgment, as under: - "the alleged land on which plaintiff claims the right of easement belonged to the Railways and was relinquished by the Railways for the Food Department in 1963-1964 for our constructions (Road, godowns, etc.) on condition that the formalities of payment of handing-over, taking over could be carried out at later stage since it was a transaction between Government to Government. Thereafter, the Food Corporation of India became the owner of this land on 1-3-1969. That the Food Corporation of India is an undertaking established by the Act of Parliament in 1964 and has taken over the functions that were being done or carried out by the Department of Food, Government of India have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India. " it is also in evidence that the defendant-Corporation had wrote a letter by which it obstructed the user of the suit land by the plaintiff. On account of the aforesaid obstruction created by the defendant, the plaintiffs have filed the suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Narol, for a parmanent injunction restraining the defendant-Corporation from obstructing the plaintiff and his servants from using the said road.

( 5 ) IT appears that having regard to the written statement filed by the defendant-Corporation claiming ownership of right over the said land and the road, no issue was sought by t