1. No error of law. The courts below have found that for as long as living memory extends the plaintiffs and the other people of the locality have been using as of right, the pathway PQRSTABCDEF in the Commissioner's plan Ext. Cl, connecting the public road on the north east with the big block of paddy land known as Narikkandi Vayal on the south for reaching their houses and the lands they cultivate although the pathway runs through private lands (parambas). Only the defendants through whose land (the northern portion of S. No. 160/8) the disputed portion of the pathway, namely, ABCDE runs have thought fit to object. This finding is amply supported by the evidence rigidly excluding those portions of it which are strictly speaking, inadmissible. Admittedly a well defined lane with high embankments or walls on either side separating it from the parambas through which it runs exists all along PQRSTA and also along EF and, even in the disputed portion in between, namely, ABCDE, the Commissioner found that there must have been such a lane which had been recently filled up and closed by the defendants And it is clear that the pathway in question is the only practicable way by