Is it necessary that the use of a pathway to transform into a right of easement by prescription under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act (for short, "the Act") the dominant owner has to prove that such user was with notice to the servient owner? This is one of the questions urged by the appellant as a substantial question of law.

2. Respondent No.1 owns item No.1 of the plaint schedule as per settlement deed No.1368 of 1967. Item No.2 property is situated on the north of item No.1 and belong to the appellant. Item No.3 property belongs to respondent No.2 and is situated on the east of item No.2. Item No.4 is the disputed pathway. According to respondent No.1, that pathway starts from the water supply road on the east, passes through item Nos.2 and 3 and reaches item No.1. Along item No.3 belonging to respondent No.3, that pathway has a width of eight feet. Along item No.2 belonging to the appellant, its width is three feet. Respondent No.1 claimed that item No.4 is the only means of access from the road on the east to item No.1 belonging to her. She claimed user of item No.4 by herself and predecessors-in-interest for over 50 years peaceably, openly, as an easement,