The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of peaceable, open, and non-permissive enjoyment in the acquisition of easement rights, as well as the interpretation and application of the Indian Easements Act, particularly Section 13 and Section 15, in determining the acquisition of easement rights by prescription and necessity.

1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The first defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. Plaintiff is the brother of the first defendant. The suit was for declaration of an easement of right of way. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit.

2. I shall deal with the facts briefly. Plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. The property on the western side of plaint A schedule property belongs to the defendants. Plaintiff is claiming an easement of right of way over the property of the defendants. The right of way is claimed by the plaintiff so as to reach the public road, viz. Medical College-Ulloor Road. The pathway claimed is admittedly in the property of the defendants. It is a very short pathway insofar as the span of it takes "only a very short distance in the defendants' property.

3. Plaintiff alleges that to reach the main road, he has no other alternate way. It is also said that this is the only way to reach the family temple from his residence. Plaintiff has put forward his case that he has acquired an easement of right of way by prescription. He also tells the court that he has a right of way as easement of necessity

4. Defendants contended that the plaintiff was not using any portion of their property as a pathway and that the plaintiff has not acquired any right of way as an easement over any portion of defendants' property by prescription. They also contended that the plaintiff has convenient alternate way to reach Medical College-Ulloor Road. They denied the claim of the plaintiff that he has a right of way as an easement of necessity.

5. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced in the case held that the plaintiff failed to prove the acquisition of right of way by prescription and also that the plaintiff was not able to establish his claim of right of way on the basis of an easement of necessity. The defeated plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court, Trivandrum. As stated earlier, the appeal was allowed. The appellate court re-evaluated the evidence and found that the plaintiff has acquired an easement of right of way over defendants' property by prescription. The appellats court also found that the plaintiff has got a right of way by easement of necessity over the property of the defendants. Now the defendants appeal.

6. The final fact finding court has now found that the plaintiff was using the disputed portion of defendants' property as a pathway for a period of more than 20 years and that the plaintiff has acquired a right of way over the said property by prescription. The appellate court has considered the evidence in great depth and commented the appreciation of the evidence made by the trial court. In second appeal, I am not bound to re-assess the evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that for appreciating the point of law he has raised an examination of the evidence in the case is necessary. He says that there is no other parametre other than the evidence in the case to value the point of law arising in the case, I have examined the evidence in the case. The witnesses have stated categorically that the plaintiff was using the disputed portion in defendants' land as a pathway. There is no serious inconsistencies in the deposition of the witnesses to disbelieve or to disregard the evidence of the witnesses. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach made by the appellate court in re-assessing the evidence is defective and superficial. I cannot agree. To illustrate the way in which both the courts have approached the evidence, I shall deal with the evidence of P. W. 3. Admittedly, P.W. 3 is a neighbour. He has said about the user of the disputed pathway by the plaintiff ever since he has commenced his residence in the A schedule property. The lower court disbelieved this evidence on the basis that his case of plaintiff's residence