This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.381/1987 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kannur. The suit was for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff is the owner of plaint A-schedule property. According to the plaintiff the access to the plaintiff's house and property is through the plaint B-schedule property to reach Kilasi road situated on the west. The plaintiff further alleged that he was having motor vehicles and the plaintiff used to ply his vehicles through Kilasi road and plaint B-schedule property to reach plaint A-schedule property. The defendant started construction of a building encroaching into plaint B-schedule property and obstructing the right of way of the plaintiff which he was enjoying for more than 70 years. The plaintiff claimed a right of way by prescriptive easement to use plaint B-schedule property for vehicular traffic.

2. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled for any such declaration or injunction. The plaintiff had no right of way through defendants' property. The Kilasi road itself came into existence recently. It was only a lane earlier. The defendant committee has been constituted to conduct a Madrasa for imparting religious education to the children of the locality. The committee has purchased the land for construction of a hall for this purpose. The committee has obtained the plan from the municipality for construction of the hall as early as in 1983. Plaintiff had filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tellicherry alleging that his right of way was infringed. On enquiry the RDO found that there was no passage through defendant's property. The plaintiff has got passage in front of his house on the eastern side which leads to Ayikkara road. Even if the plaintiff used to use the passage occasionally it would not confer any right on the plaintiff.

3. Both the trial court as well as the first appellate court have granted a decree declaring plaintiff's right of way over plaint B-schedule property having a width of 6 feet 8 inches by prescriptive easement right and the defendants are injuncted from making any construction so as to prevent free passage enjoyed by the plaintiff to plaint A-schedule property. Ext.C2 plan was directed to form part of the decree.

4. In this second appeal notice was ordered on the following questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal.

i) Is it not absolutely necessary and essential that the plaintiff in a suit for establishment of his claim for easementary right should specifically plead and prove such right over the servient tenement?

ii) In the absence of a precise description or measurement of the alleged passage was it proper or legal for the courts below to grant a decree basing on the observation by the Commissioner that he found the distance between the two wall on either side of the passage is 6 feet 8 inches, thereby holding that this distance of 6 feet 8 inches should be presumed to be the passage used for vehicular traffic?

iii) Is it proper and legal to grant a decree when admittedly there was an obstruction of the alleged passage four years prior to the institution of the suit, which obstruction admittedly was not removed and there was no passage for vehicles through the disputed passage within two years next before the institution of the suit?

5. It will be advantageous to bear in mind the law declared by the Apex Court and by this Court before a detailed discussion of the above questions of law formulated in the background of the facts of the case.

6. The Supreme Court in Justiniano Antao Vs. Bernadette B. Pereira (2005 (1) SCC 471) held as follows:

"But in order to establish a right by way of prescription one has to show that the incumbent has been using the land as of right, peacefully and openly and without any interruption for the last 20 years. There should be categorical pleadings that since what date to which date one is using the access for the last 20 years. In order to establish t