Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. This second appeal raises an interesting question regarding an easement of necessity, and about the proper construction to be put on Section 41, Easements Act. The facts are not now in dispute. The plaintiffs are the appellants. There were four brothers who formed the members of an undivided Hindu family. About 40 years ago the four brothers effected a partition of the joint family properties. A plot of land with some houses thereon was divided among the four brothers. On the north a public street ran east to west, and on the south there were cultivated fields belonging to strangers. The southern portion of the common land consisted of account gardens, the same was divided into three, the western portion (B-3) fell to the share of the second brother, the middle portion C-3 fell to the share of the 3rd brother, and the easternmost portion (D-3) to the fourth brother. The remaining land was practically divided into four portions. The westernmost A, A-1, and A-2, fell to the 1st brothers share; the portion next east of that, B, B-l, and B-2, fell to the share of the 2nd brother; the portion next east of that, C, C-1, and C-2, fell to the share of the