1. The defendants are the appellants. Suit was for declaration of right of the quasi easement of the plaintiff over a pathway and for consequential injunction against the defendants. Trial court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the lower appellate court reversing the decree of dismissal granted a decree declaring right of quasi easement of the plaintiff over the pathway and also a prohibitory injunction against defendants from causing obstruction to the use of that pathway.

2. Notice had been issued for hearing on all substantial questions of law I of IX formulated in the memorandum of appeal. However, after hearing the submissions of the counsel on both sides, I have reframed the questions of law as hereunder, and heard further arguments on such questions:

(i) Whether right of way be claimed as a quasi easement, when any enjoyment over a way being always considered as a discontinuous easement ? and more so when one of the essential conditions of quasi easement right of such easement being continuous ?

(ii) Where a right of way along with a share was expressly provided for when that was necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of another sharer in the property partitioned under Ext.B1 has not the lower appellate court went wrong in upholding the claim of way through B schedule property under the deed that too as a quasi easement for enjoyment of ‘G’ schedule. Was the claim of quasi easement available to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff when her share has also access to the NH like sharers allotted in A,B, C and D of Ext.B1 and not way as claimed in B schedule has been spelt out in the deed ?

(iii) Has not the lower appellate court gone wrong in drawing any inference over the existence of a pathway claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the shape of plaint B schedule property when such shape was the result of division by Ext.B1 and before the division a property allotted in B schedule to Ext.B1 was similarly situated like the rest of the property ?

(iv) Whether the finding as to the existence of the pathway along plaint item 3 or any part of plaint item 2 before partition of Ext.B1 sustainable, since item 2 or item 3 had no separate existence prior to the partition deed and access to all portions of the entire property from the National Highway possible from portions of the western boundary?

(v) Whether the plaintiff has proved the essential requisites for right of quasi easement pleaded by her?

3. The 2nd defendant/2nd appellant is the power of attorney of the 1st defendant/1st appellant, and his interest is limited only as an agent of the 1st defendant. Declaration of right of quasi easement is claimed by the plaintiff over plaint schedule item No.3 property which formed part of item No.2 property belonging to the 1st defendant. Plaint schedule item No.1 property was purchased by plaintiff under Ext.A1 sale deed. Plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 formed part of 94.750 cents of property belonging to one Padmanabhan. After his death that property with another item was divided among his children under Ext.B1 partition deed. His six children were allotted shares in the aforesaid property of 94.750 cents as under schedules ‘A’, ’B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘G’. His other two children were given their shares in the other property. The above property divided under ‘A’ to ‘G’ schedules had a frontage to the National Highway on its western side. Plaintiff is the assignee of ‘G’ schedule allottee and the 1st defendant, the assignee of ‘B’ schedule allottee. The assignor of plaintiff under ‘G’ schedule got 10.750 cents comprising there shop rooms abutting the national highway on the western side. She sold the northern most and southern most shop rooms to others retaining the middle shop room. The middle shop room with the land on the rear side in ‘G’ schedule, both together, comprising an extent of 8 cents 963 sq. links, was sold to plaintiff under Ext.A1 sale deed. ‘B’ schedule allotted to the sharer thereof is situate on