1. The 2nd plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. Suit was for declaration of the right of prescriptive easement of the plaintiffs over a pathway, and for injunction to restrain the defendants from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in enjoying such pathway. First plaintiff is the mother of the appellant/2nd plaintiff. Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, but, pending appeal by the defendants, the 1st plaintiff passed away, and the 2nd plaintiff thereupon was recorded as her legal heir. The decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs, after re-appraisal of the evidence, was reversed by the lower appellate court which non-suited them. Feeling aggrieved, the second plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus:

Four items of properties are described in the plaint. Item No.1 is the property of the plaintiffs comprising their residential building which was allotted under the partition effected by the members of their tarwad towards the share of their thavazhi. Ext.A1 is the partition deed. Item No.2 lying to the south of item No.1 was obtained by the 1st defendant under the same deed. Item No.3 which lies to the south and east of item No.2 belonged to the 3rd defendant. To the south of item Nos.2 and 3, there is a panchayat road lying in east-west direction, which joins a National Highway situate on the east. Through item Nos.2 and 3 properties, the plaintiffs are enjoying a pathway from plaint item No.1 to reach the panchayat road. That pathway described as item No.4 which had been enjoyed even before the partition under Ext.A1 by the members of the tarwad continued to be enjoyed by the plaintiffs after partition, and now, they have prescribed a right of prescriptive easement over the same by their uninterrupted use for more than the statutory period, was the basis of the case set up to claim the reliefs canvassed in the suit alleging threat of obstruction to the enjoyment of the pathway by the defendants. The pathway running through the properties of defendants 1 and 3, is described as having a width of 2 meters and length of 45 meters. 2nd defendant was impleaded in the suit alleging that he is in management of item No.2 belonging to the 1st defendant. Suit claim was resisted by defendants 1 and 3 filing a joint written statement, in which disputing the existence of the pathway, item No.4, through item Nos.2 and 3, they contended that previously when the properties remained unbounded, the plaintiffs used to pass through their properties on permission given. The plaintiffs have not prescribed any right of prescriptive easement or easement by necessity over any portion of item Nos.2 and 3 properties for use and enjoyment as a pathway, according to them. They also contended that considering the relationship of the parties, they have set apart a pathway touching upon the boundaries of item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint properties for the use of the plaintiffs as a pathway to item No.1 property from the panchayat road situate on the south.

3. Suit instituted for the reliefs of declaration of right of prescriptive easement and for perpetual prohibitory injunction was later amended by the plaintiffs to seek a decree of mandatory injunction also alleging that obstruction had been caused to item No.4 pathway by the defendants by enclosing the pathway constructing a compound wall.

4. On the materials tendered by both sides, which consisted of Pws.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 and A2 for the plaintiffs, Exts.B1 and B2 for the defendants, and, Exts.C1 and C2 series reports and plans prepared by an advocate commissioner deputed by the court for local inspection, the trial court negativing the challenges of the defendants upheld the claims raised by the plaintiffs and granted a decree declaring their right of prescriptive easement over item No.4 pathway, and also restraining the defendants by prohibitory injunction from causing any obstruction to them in using item