1. Second appeal is by the plaintiffs, in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, who lost in both the courts below.

2. The suit property is nearly two acres of land, which is admittedly owned and possessed by the appellants. Respondents are the adjacent owners. They are sought to be injuncted from taking forcible possession of the suit property or disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellants on the allegation that they are going to take possession by force. Respondents denied these allegations and admitted the title and possession of the appellants. Their only defence is that there is a pathway through the plaint schedule property, over which they acquired a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to their property and building and the object of the present suit is only to deprive them of that right under the cover of injunction without disclosing the real facts. Issue No.2 is concerning the easement right.

3. Trial court as well as the appellate court found on the evidence that there is a pathway through the plaint schedule property which is being used by the respondents. So also, the finding is that except the user of the pathway, respondents never in