JUDGMENT

The defendants 3 and 4 came up with this appeal against the reversal of decree of dismissal of the suit by the First Appellate Court and grant of a decree declaring prescriptive right of way, granting mandatory and prohibitory injunction.

2. The dispute is with respect to B schedule way over which the plaintiffs claim prescriptive right of easement of way. It is pleaded in the plaint that in continuation of their predecessor in interest for the last 40 years, they were using the B schedule way as an easement, and as of right, continuously and thereby acquired prescriptive right of easement. The Commissioner who visited the property had noticed a slab over a drainage exactly on the place wherein the said way leading to the property of plaintiffs. It is also reported by the Commissioner the existence of two steps at the entrance of the said way from the main road on the west. The construction of a stone wall (Kalcut) was also reported by the Commissioner except the place wherein the steps were provided at the entrance of the B schedule way from the western road. PW1, the plaintiff who was aged 33 years had given oral evidence in support of her claims. One witness, PW2, postma