1. An interesting question arises for consideration in this appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

1) When the owners of adjoining properties lay out a pathway between their lands by providing portions of their respective lands for forming the same and its remains in use for more than 20 years, can any of them be permitted to obstruct or close the portion of the pathway formed in his property?

2) Is not the owner of a property entitled to claim the right of prescriptive easement over the others property when two adjoining land owners have formed a pathway between their properties by dedicating parts of properties of both and the pathway has been in use for a period of more than 20 years?

3) Are the trial court and appellate court justified in refusing to the prayer for declaration and injunction with regard to the portion of plaint schedule item No.2 having a length of 114 feet for the reason that the plaintiff also has a right over it?

4) Whether the finding of the appellate court that the prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the Kayyala is time barred is correct, in view of the fact that the