Varadachariar, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, is at present the owner of S. No. 6/2 in the village of Keeza Ami and he sued to restrain defendants 1 and 2, who claimed to be the trustees of a neighbouring Pillayar temple, from interfering with the plaintiffs use of a pathway across S. No. 1 (marked B in the plaint plan) leading from his smithy in S. No. 6/2 to a public road. The averment in the plaint was that defendants 1 and 2 had no right to or interest in S. No. 1 and the plaintiff had a right to use the pathway as an easement of necessity or by prescription or by mamul. Defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that S. No. 1 belonged to the Pillayar temple of which they were the trustees and they denied that the plaintiff had acquired any right to use the pathway whether by prescription or by mamul or as an easement of necessity. The Government was added as defendant 3 and as Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar had laid great strees upon the attitude taken by the Government in this litigation it is as well to set out what exactly the Governments written statement states. The Government said:

The pathway concerned in the suit vests in the Taluk Board, Vellore. This defendant is not inter