Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. Heard. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether in a case where the document granting a right of easement does not specifically mention alignment of the way over which the grant is created, use of another way belonging to the servient owner temporarily with permission of the servient owner would fasten the agreement as per the document on that way".

2. There was an agreement between the first appellant-original defendant and respondent-plaintiff, a Company to lease out the land belonging to the first appellant to facilitate respondent running a specialised hospital. Accordingly Ext.A3, agreement dated 05.04.1986 was executed between the first appellant and the respondent whereby the first appellant agreed to lease out 4 acres belonging to it to the respondent in two phases. That was followed by Ext.A1, lease deed dated 15.01.1987 executed by the first appellant in favour of the respondent regarding plaint A schedule - 2 acres for a period of 150 years. Exhibit A1, lease deed provided, though in the schedule describing the property leased that respondent will have a right for vehicular traffic from the main road on the north to the two acres leased as per Ext.A1 (admittedly, plaint A schedule). Following Ext.A1, the existing structure in plaint A schedule was modified and additions were made where respondent started the Shree Uthradam Tirunal Hospital (for short, "the SUT Hospital"). While so, respondent sent Ext.A4, letter dated 05.06.1987 to the local authority seeking a no objection certificate to put up structures in the property of first appellant to be leased (in the second phase). That was replied by the local authority as per Ext.A6, dated 18.06.1987 refusing to grant no objection certificate. For whatever reason it be, the second phase of lease was not gone through and respondent had to be satisfied with plaint A schedule covered by Ext.A1, lease deed dated 15.01.1987. In the year, 1989 respondent filed O.S. 2810 of 1989 in the first Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for declaration of its right to have vehicular traffic and other modes of transportation through plaint B schedule road for access to the SUT Hospital in plaint A schedule and for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the first appellant from interfering with the possession, enjoyment and use of plaint B schedule.

3. First appellant-original defendant resisted the suit on various grounds including that there is no proper description of the way in the plaint and that neither Ext.A3, nor Ext,A1, contain a description or location of the way over which right was granted as per Ext.A1 and that the description about the way being vague, no right as claimed by the respondent is available over plaint B schedule.

4. Trial court accepted the case of respondent and granted a decree in its favour. That was confirmed by the first appellate court. Hence this Second Appeal.

5. During the pendency of this appeal, the servient tenement was purchased by the second appellant which got itself impleaded as additional second appellant as per order on I.A. No.1514 of 2011 producing a copy of the assignment deed in its favour.

6. Learned counsel for appellants contended that in so far as there is no proper description or alignment of the way either in Exts.A3, and A1 or in the plaint or in Ext.C1, report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, a blanket decree as granted by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court should not have been granted. Learned counsel pointed out that there is no mention of the length or width of the way either in Exts.A3 and A1, plaint schedule or even in Ext.C1, report and the sketch accompanying it. Hence a decree with respect to a vague way cannot be granted. It is contended that in so far as Exts.A3 or A1 does not provide alignment of the way referred therein, it is open to the appellants to request that a mode which is least onerous t