Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the same is the appellant. His title to, or possession over, the property was not in dispute and precisely for that reason, both the courts below felt it unnecessary to grant the declaration sought. The only claim of the defendant respondent was that contained in para.7 of his written statement, that he has got an easement of right of way over the plaint schedule property. This is elaborated in paragraph 10 of the written statement by stating that the defendant has no access to his property, (except through the plaint schedule property), his property being surrounded by water on the sou them, western and northern sides and by the plaint schedule property on the eastern side, the obvious implication being that a way through the plaint schedule property on the east was a must, and one of necessity. It is in evidence that the southern, western and northern sides of the defendant's property are thodus (canals) and therefore the only access by land to that property is through the plaintiff's property on the east. Thi