Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought claiming the following reliefs:

(1) The establishment of the plaintiffs right of way, marked A-B in the plaint plan, through the land of the defendant on to the plaintiffs land:

(2) For an injunction to the defendants to remove the fence which they put up across the path about 10 months before the suit:

(3) For the issuing of a permanent injunction against the defendants obstructing the path.

2. The lower Appellate Court (as I read its judgment) came to the following conclusions:

(a) The plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title to the dominant tenement, were using the plaint path for much longer than 20 years before the interruption took place in September 1910 by the act of the defendants putting up the fence. (The suit was brought in July 1911 and the evidence of the plaintiffs 2nd witness speaks to the enjoyment for 40 years).

(b) Though the 1st defendant objected to the plaintiff using the way in 1907 or 1908, the plaintiff did actually continue to enjoy the right of way till the fence was put up in September 1910. The plaintiff says in his evidence "the path was not closed" till 1910; "the pathway w