JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with the right of the plaintiff, the members of his family, the labourers employed by him and the bullocks belonging to him from going to plots Nos. 9 and 10 over the rasta MNPQ shown in the plan attached to the plaint and for directing the defendants to remove the portion of a wall MN marked in the plan aforesaid constructed by them. The plaintiff's case was that the passage claimed by him was one Lattha wide joining his plots Nos. 9 and 10 with the main public road in the north and passing over the boundary between plots Nos. 30 and 31 and that he, members of his family and servants had been using it for a period of more than 25 years as of right without any let or hindrance; thus they acquired a prescriptive right of easement under Section 15 of the Easements Act. The plaintiff further pleaded that the passage over the land MNPQ shown in the plaint map was the only access available to the public road from his plots Nos. 9 and 10. The defendants resisted the suit on the plea that there was no passage one Lattha