Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Moideen Haji - Appellant vs. Kadir & Ors:

• Legal Subject: The case concerns Property Law, specifically Easements, focusing on the distinction between a Right of Way by Prescription and a Right of Way by Necessity under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Sections 13 and 15). (!)
• Facts of the Case: The plaintiff sought a declaration of a right of easement of way across the B schedule property to reach the panchayat road on the east. The lower courts had decreed the suit, granting an injunction against the defendants, based on findings that the plaintiff had perfected an easement by both prescription and necessity due to 30–35 years of continuous use "as of right." (!)
• Court's Scrutiny of Prescription: The High Court accepted the factual finding of continuous use but rejected the legal conclusion that it constituted an easement by prescription. The court noted that the user might have been based on the tacit consent of the owner of the B schedule property rather than being "as of right," as owners in India were not always zealous about objecting to such use. (!)
• Coalescing of Ownership: A critical legal principle established was that when the ownership of both the dominant tenement (A schedule) and the servient tenement (B schedule) coalesced in a single person (the plaintiff's father in 1095), any existing prescriptive easement came to an absolute end. This differs from the coalescing of possession, where the easement is merely suspended and revives upon severance. (!)
• Establishment of Necessity: The court held that an easement of necessity arose when the Receiver sold the A and B schedule properties to different owners in 1111. The court rejected the argument that there was no necessity because the plaintiff had outlets to the north (wife's property) and west (third party's property), ruling that these did not constitute established rights of egress without specific easements or roads abutting the property. (!)
• Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. However, the court clarified that the easement sustaining the plaintiff's right was one of necessity resulting from the subsequent sales by the Receiver, not a prescriptive easement. Costs were to be borne by both parties. (!)