Key Points: - The court discusses whether the right of access granted by Ext.A3 and Ext.A1 is over a specific way or a temporary permissive use, given lack of alignment/width in those documents (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the applicability of Section 22 of the Easements Act to cases with an unascertained or nondemarcated way versus express grants where the way is already determined (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It uses Advocate Commissioner Ext.C1, Ext.C2, Ext.C2(a) to ascertain the width and route of the plaint B schedule road and confines relief to the route defined in Ext.C2(a) (!) (!) . - It concludes that where the way is ascertained and clearly defined by express grant, Sec.22 has no application, and the dominant owner cannot be compelled to use an alternate route; if not ascertained, Sec.22 may apply and the route must be determined by the court through appropriate evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Second Appeal is allowed in part, limiting decree to the way marked by Advocate Commissioner Ext.C2(a) (!) .

How to determine the alignment and identifiable description of a way for easement when Ext.A3 and Ext.A1 do not specify width or precise alignment?

What is the application and scope of Section 22 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 in cases where an express grant defines a right of way but the way is not ascertained or lacks formal alignment?

What is the proper course to determine the exact way for an easement when there is a dispute over whether the right is over a fixed path or a temporary permissive use, and what evidence or reports are admissible to fix the way?