The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific and precise pleadings for easement rights, as the right of easement is a precarious and special right claimed over the land of another.

The second defendant in O.S.No.321 of 1979. Munsiffs Court. Karunagappally is the appellant in this appeal. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the third defendant in the suit are the respondents herein. The first defendant's rights have been sold to the second defendant. The suit was filed for declaration of an casement right over C Schedule property which is a pathway 41z2 feet wide through the eastern extremity of B Schedule property. The plaint A schedule property belongs to plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the third defendant and they arc owners of different plots in A Schedule property. B schedule property which belongs to defendants 1 and 2 lies to the south of A schedule. To the south of B schedule. there ;is a public rood The plaintiffs stated that from A schedule property for access to the public road there is a pathway through the eastern extremity of B schedule property having a width of 41z2 feet which is described in the plaint as C schedule. The said pathway is so being used for more than 100 years. The defendants arc trying to obstruct the use of the C schedule as a pathway. The plaintiffs claimed an casement right over the C schedule pathway. The suit is filed for declaration of the easement right and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants land 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs' use of the C schedule as a pathway.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 denied the claim of title by the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant over the A schedule property. They denied that there was a pathway as mentioned in the C schedule. The easement right claimed by the plaintiffs was also denied. It was pleaded that C schedule is not a pathway; but it is only a bund constructed by the second defendant to prevent water from the eastern Thodu entering into the B schedule property. which is a paddy field. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs have an alternate pathway. The trial court held that the plaintiffs have an casement right of way by necessity and by prescription. The suit was decreed on 10-8-1981. The injunction prayed for was allowed. It was declared that the plaintiffs have a right of easement of way along the C schedule 'nadavarambu' over the plaint B schedule property. since the easement right has arisen out of necessity and by prescription.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the District Court. Kollam as A.S.No.140 of 1985. By judgment dated 22-1-1986. the learned District judge held that the plaintiffs have a customary easement and also an easement by prescription which can be inferred. In this view. the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. The second defendant has come up in second appeal.

4. The following three questions of law. as formulated in paragraph 12 of the Memorandum of Appeal arc the substantial questions of law that have been framed 1 or consideration in the Second Appeal:

I. Whether the mere existence of pathway is sufficient to acquire an casement by prescription under S.15 of the Easement Act when proving the other the ingredients mentioned in the section?

II. Whether the courts below were right in granting a decree to the plaintiffs on a question. which was not pleaded. by the plaintiffs in the plaint?

III. Whether the suit by different owners of different plots and on behalf of the 3rd defendant maintainable in the circumstances of the case?

5. I heard counsel. Appellants' counsel heavily stressed on the fact that the courts below have granted a relief. which was not pleaded by the plaintiffs in the suit. It is seen that all that is claimed in the plaint is that there is a pathway 41z2 feet wide. north to south. through the eastern side of the B schedule property.; that it exists so for over 100 years and the owners of the plaint A schedule properties could reach the public road from their properties. which is of the southern part of B schedule property. only using the 'nadavarambu'. which is C schedule property. and there is no other pathway. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs have