JUDGMENT

Dalip Singh, J. - The plaintiffs in this case sued for a permanent injunction directing defendant 1 to remove the almirah and the wooden takht which he had placed in a certain galli and restraining him from using the land of the galli in future in any way so as to obstruct the rights of the plaintiffs in the galli. The plaintiffs claimed to be joint owners of the land of the galli and also claimed rights of easement and user therein. They alleged that their rights of way in this passage had been obstructed by the erection of this takht and the almirah. The defendants pleaded that they were the owners of the galli and that the plaintiffs had only a right of way and that the almirah and the takht had been lying there for more than 35 years and that the plaintiffs' right of way was not obstructed and the suit was barred by limitation.

2. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not proved their joint ownership, that the defendants had failed to prove their exclusive ownership, that the land in question was a street which the plaintiffs had a right to use, that the obstruction made the enjoyment of the easement more difficult and that the obstruction had been caused only few months before the suit and granted, therefore, a decree for permanent injunction as prayed.

3. On appeal the learned District Judge agreed that the plaintiffs had not proved their joint title. He held that the takht had been there since 1896 and that the plaintiffs' right of way had in no way been interfered with and he thereupon dismissed the suit with costs in both Courts.

4. The plaintiffs have appealed and the first point urged by their counsel is that both the Courts are wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the joint ownership. His ground is that in the case of a blind alley there is a presumption of law that the ownership vests in the owners of the adjacent houses and he cites Secy. of State v. Lakshmishankar Govindram , a Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court, in support of his proposition. The word "presumption" is sometimes used to describe what is really an inference of fact and not a presumption of law in the true sense, and I think the word "presumption" in this particular ruling is used in the former sense. No doubt ordinarily speaking, if the Court drew this inference of fact in the case of a blind alley it would be a proper inference to draw. But in this particular case evidently the matter was not presented in this light to the District Judge and I cannot say that his finding which is a finding of fact is wrong. In this particular case further there is the fact that plaintiffs never claimed either in 1895 or in 1916 or at any time prior to this suit any right of joint ownership. I therefore repel the contention of the appellants.

5. The second point raised by them is that the trial Court held that the defendants were not exclusive owners of this property and they say that their admission that the defendants were joint owners along with themselves must be taken as a whole or should not be considered at all. There is force in this contention, and as the District Judge gave no finding as to whether the defendants were or were not owners for the purpose of this appeal, I will assume that the defendants also are trespassers on this land. Nevertheless, I see no force in the further ground that counsel raises on this assumption, namely, that whereas the owner of a servient tenement can use the property in any way he likes as long as he does not curtail the plaintiffs' right of easement, this principle does not apply to the case of a trespasser. An easement like a right of way over a tenement is a right running with the land and is not a personal right. It seems to me, therefore, that whether it is the owner or a trespasser who is in possession the person who claims the right of way cannot claim more than that his right of easement should not be curtailed in any way. It is a finding of fact by the learned District J