1. O.S.Nos.4/2009 and 9/2009 of the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla were jointly tried. O.S.No.4/2009 was dismissed with costs whereas; O.S.No.9/2009 was decreed with costs. The plaintiff in O.S.No.4/2009, who is the defendant in O.S.No.9/2009, preferred A.S.Nos.5 of 2015 and 6 of 2015 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thiruvalla challenging the judgments and decrees of the Munsiff’s Court. Both these appeals were dismissed with costs by the lower appellate court, and hence these second appeals.

2. Both the suits are for perpetual injunction. O.S.No.4/2009 was filed by the appellant herein for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent herein from obstructing his user of plaint schedule item No.3 pathway. The appellant claims that the predecessor-ininterest of the plaint schedule item No.1 property, and thereafter the appellant had been making use of plaint schedule item No.3 pathway, continuously and openly as of right, for ingress and egress to the plaint schedule item No.1 property for more than 70 years, prior to the filing of the suit. Precisely, what has been pleaded is the right of easement by prescription over plaint schedule item No.3 pathway. For