1. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.418 of 1988 on the file of the Munsiff, Thiruvalla. The respondents herein instituted the above suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants and the third defendant with a plea that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is belonging to the respondents and that Item No.2 is belonging to the appellants over which the respondents had been walking through for ingress and egress to Item No.1 and that the defendants had been attempting to block the same for which they have got no manner of right. To restrain the so called attempt to block the pathway, the injunction was sought for.

2. The third defendant remained ex-parte. The appellants, inter alia contended that, the respondents had no manner of right over Item No.2 and that Item No.3 being a temple property, respondents and others had been walking here and there. The said usage would not confer any right over the same in favour of the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

3. After raising the issues, the parties were sent for trial. On the side of the respondents, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.A1 and C1 were marked. The appellants did not adduce any evidence. The Trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Though the appellants preferred an appeal as A.S.44 of 1992, they were not successful. Now this second appeal.

5. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum:

“I. Whether in the absence of prayer for declaration or plaintiffs’ title and possession over plaint schedule item 2, or declaration of their right of easement over the same, the suit for mere relief of injunction will lie?

II. Whether in the absence of pleading and proof of plaintiffs’ title and possession or of facts on which a right of easement can be founded, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction?

III. Properties on the north and west of the temple compound lying continguously upto the public road, having been under one common ownership earlier till recently, is it open to the plaintiffs’ to contend that they have no other way for ingress and egress to the public road on the south?

IV. Whether it can be held that people walking through temple compound lying open, is doing so in exercise of their right of way and as of right, and can such persons acquire any right of easement or any other right so as to entitle them to injunct the temple authorities from closing the temple compound?

V. Whether on the pleadings and evidence the plaintiffs have made out a case for injunction?”

6. Either side was heard. Perused the judgment under appeal. While confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, the lower appellate court arrived the following finding in para.10.

“(T)rue that plaintiffs have not claimed any easement right over Item No.2. But that will not give rise to any right to the defendants who have not proved its title to close it or to diminish its width or to commit any sort of waste therein”.

(A)s Item No.2 is used by the plaintiffs for entering Item No.1 for several years as their means of access and defendants have not proved their right to obstruct if they have no manner of right to close it or to diminish its width or to commit any sort of waste therein. So plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for injunction”.

7. The title of the appellants over Item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties is not disputed. On the other hand, it specifically admitted that Item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties belongs to the appellants. The lower appellate court omitted to note the fundamental principle that when the respondents/plaintiffs admitted the right and title of the appellants/defendants 1 and 2, the appellants need not further prove their right or title.

8. There is no whisper in the pleadings that the respondents had perfected any sort of right of way through Item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties. While arriving a finding that though