JUDGMENT :- This is a plaintiffsappeal arising out of a suit for an injunction. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had opened a door in their house through which they started passing over the plaintiffsland and they had also constructed a parnalathrough which they had started flowing water and this parnalapassed through the plaintiffsland. The defendantscase was that the parnalaand the door were old and the defendants had! acquired the right to use them as easements.

The trial court decreed the suit. On defendantsappeal, the lower appellate Court after considering the evidence on record allowed the defendantsappeal in part and held that the door complained of was proved to be old, but dismissed the appeal so far as the pamalawas concerned. It further held that the defendants had the right of way through the door complained of and modified the decree of the trial Court to that extent.

2. In this Second Appeal the respondents are unrepresented. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before me two points. The first is that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the Amins report relating to the door. That report was an important piece of evidence. According

Click Here to Read the rest of this document