P. Bhavadasan, J.

1. The defendants 1 to 6 are the appellants. They suffered a decree at the hands of the trial court which was confirmed in appeal. The short facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows.

2. Plaint A schedule property belonged to the grand father of the plaintiff which ultimately devolved on him. The plaintiff and his family are residing in the said property. On the south, east and west of the property is a thodu. The property on the northern side of the plaint A schedule property was purchased by the wife of the plaintiff. Further north is the property owned by the defendants and the said property is shown as B schedule property. According to the plaintiff, there is a pathway starting from the northern side of the plaint schedule property which passes through the property of the wife of the plaintiff and then enters the property of the defendants and goes towards north and then takes a turn to the east and ultimately reaches the Chirackal-Althara Panchayath road. That is shown as C schedule property. The plaintiff claimed prescriptive right of easement to the said pathway.

3. The defendants resisted the claim. They denied that there is a pathway as alleged in the plaint and also that the plaintiff had prescriptive right of easement to use the same. They contended that the plaintiff is only allowed to walk through the property. They denied the right claimed by the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the above pleadings, issues were raised and the parties went to trial. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A6 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants had DWs 1 to 4 examined and Ext.B1 marked. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the commission report and plan.

5. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that there did exist a pathway shown as C schedule and the plaintiff was successful in establishing the prescriptive right of easement to use the same. The suit was accordingly decreed. Aggrieved defendants carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate court, on independent evaluation of the evidence, came to an identical conclusion as that of the trial court and held that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed the same. The aggrieved defendants have come up in appeal.

6. The following substantial question of law was raised at the time of admission of the R.S.A. When plaint C schedule property was not properly identified and demarcated whether courts below were justified in granting a decree for declaration of right of way over plaint C schedule property?

7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that C schedule property was not properly identified and without which a decree could not have been granted to the plaintiff. It is also contended that there was want of evidence to show that the plaintiff has been using the pathway as of right and for the statutory period. It is further contended that at any rate the plaintiff had other means of access to his property and so he has no right to use any portion of defendants' property as a pathway.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that both the courts below have independently considered the evidence on record and have come to an identical conclusion that C schedule pathway exists and the plaintiff and his predecessors in interest had been using the same for a long period and his right was established. It is also significant, according to the learned counsel, that going by the evidence on record, there was no other pathway available to the plaintiff.

9. After having heard the learned counsel on both sides and after having perused the records, it becomes difficult to accept the case of the defendants. The Commissioner's report shows that there does exist a pathway as alleged in the plaint and it is clearly demarcated in the report. Both the c