P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

Since the parties were the same, this Second Appeal was heard along with S.A. 397 of 1989. But considering the nature of the Questions involved in the two Second Appeals, I think it appropriate to pronounce separate judgments in the two Second Appeals.

2. The second plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. He is the son of plaintiff No.1 in the suit, who died pending the litigation. The suit by the plaintiffs was one for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the plaint C Schedule pathway that allegedly existed in the South-western portion of the defendants' property and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the user of that pathway. Plaint C Schedule, the disputed portion of the pathway, has been marked by the Commissioner in Ext. C3 plan as BC. The right of way was claimed by the plaintiffs by way of an easement by prescription. In the plaint, there was no prayer for declaration of the right of way of the plaintiffs by way of prescription. The prayer in the plaint was only for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the portion of the way blocked by them to its