Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

1. The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff and the defendants are neighbours, the plaintiff being the owner of Survey No. 1565 and the third defendant being the owner of Survey No. 1566. It is said that defendants 1 and 2 claim under the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs suit was for a declaration that the wall marked H in the plan, between the plaintiffs and defendants properties, was the plaintiffs own wall, that the defendants had no fight of passage through the pathway marked D and that the defendants should close the doorway marked H (1) and for a mandatory injunction to give effect to the above declaration. The defendants pleaded that the wall H was their wall, that it was built on a portion of Survey No. 1566 which belonged to them, and that plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in respect of the wall H. With reference to the passage D they claimed a right of way through the same to the buildings F and J. There was also some dispute with reference to a small building T just to the west of F. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the wall H since it was constructed wholly on d