( 1 ) THIS is defendants second appeal which has been admitted solely for the consideration of the following question which has been formulated by the Honble Judge :"as to whether on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants were having their shops either, permanent or moveable and were doing business on the Patri of the road for the last more than twenty years, a decree could be passed merely on the ground that the plaintiff had a right of frontgage of his premises without determining the reasonable extent of the frontage. "

( 2 ) FOR the decision of this question facts may be briefly stated thus : A suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for a mandatory injunction seeking the removal of certain structures said to have been unlawfully constructed by the defendants over a piece of land marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H stated to constitute the frontage of the plaintiffs house. The allegation was that the structures had the effect of obstructing the access of plaintiff to a public road which lies in front of the plaintiffs house with a roadside patri intervening. The plaint case was that the plaintiff had an undoubted right of fr