Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Munsiff’s Court-I, Kozhikode in O.S.No.197/1985 followed by those of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kozhikode in A.S.No.69/2011, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.197/85 has come up with this second appeal.

2. This case has a checkered career. The proceedings were initiated in the year 1985, and it still continues. The suit was originally filed as one for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from obstructing the plaintiffs from using plaint B schedule pathway and from causing any obstructions on it. Later the suit was amended by incorporating the first relief as one for a declaration that the plaintiffs are having easement right by way of prescription over plaint B schedule item. Once again the plaint was amended, when the plaint B schedule pathway that was being claimed by the plaintiffs was allegedly blocked by the defendants, by incorporating a relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the gate put up at the western side of the plaint B schedule, and also to cut and remove the trees planted in plaint B schedule item.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they were