1. The suit, as instituted by the appellant as the second plaintiff and another as the first plaintiff, was to declare a right of way in favour of the appellant over the adjoining property of the respondents, both as an easement by prescription and as an easement of necessity. The two Courts have concurrently held, that the appellant is not entitled to the right as an easement of prescription; they have also held that the appellant has not established the right as an easement of necessity on the ground, that there is an alternative means of access to the public road. The finding of the appellate court on this is recorded thus:

"The fact that the northern pathway, which is called by some of the witnesses as a channel, some of them as a gutter and the others as a pathway, can be used as a way for ingress and agress, shows that MNO pathway is not imperatively necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property blocked in Survey No. 25/10 A & B".

The finding of the trial Court is also the same. The complaint of the appellant's counsel was, that this finding is not sufficient to negative the right claimed as an easement of necessity and also, that the appellant had claimed