1. The simple question to be considered in this second appeal filed by the defendants is whether a right of way acquired as a grant of easement by the provisions of a partition deed, which was also absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement at the time of the grant, could be taken as an easement of necessity and treated as extinguished when the absolute necessity ceased by the owner of the dominant tenement acquiring an adjacent property having road access.

2. Plaint B-schedule property was allotted to the share of defendants as per ExtA.partition deed and A-schedule property lying to the south of it was allotted to the assignor of the plaintiff. There is a road running east-west just on the northern side of B-schedule property. C-schedule is the pathway from the road leading to A-schedule property without which A-schedule had no access at the time of partition. It is part of B-schedule property on its western extremity running north-south. In Ext.A.partition deed a pathway was provided to A-schedule through C-schedule. The case of the appellants is that after the plaintiff purchased A-schedule property he has also acquired the land lying immediately