1. Appellant is the plaintiff in OS 182 of 1976 of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a mandatary injunction directing the defendants to restore the 'Kattapuni' (bund) between his areca garden in RS.135/4 on the north and paddy field in RS 135/5 on the south in its original condition and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from committing any damages to the band and for other consequential reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that the "bund" lying between his areca garden and the paddy field has been used by him and his ancestors as a pathway and that this is the only pathway for his ingress and egress to his property.

2. The Courts below held that there cannot be any easement by prescription as the plaintiff admitted that the disputed property belongs to him. The only question to be considered is as to whether a plea of ownership and a plea of easement can be advanced alternatively in a suit. Ownership and easement rights are inconsistent and cannot coexist in the lame person. S.4 of the Easements Act defines 'Easement' as follows:

"An easement is a tight which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as