J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs, who claimed to be the owners of A schedule property, lost their suit for prescriptive right of easement against the defendants and they have thus come up in appeal.

2. The facts absolutely necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The plaint A schedule property is shown as 50 cents of land with two buildings therein. It is not in dispute that the property originally belonged to one Smt. Elizabeth Kalapurakkal. She became mentally ill and a receiver was appointed to manage her property. It appears that the sea swallowed the property and later on, when the sea receded, the property was treated as a Puramboke land. The plaintiffs claimed that they had trespassed into the property, put up the structures therein and have been in occupation from 1967 onwards. Claiming that the plaint B schedule pathway had been used by them for over the statutory period as a matter of right openly, uninterruptedly and continuously, they claimed a right of easement by prescription over the plaint B schedule pathway alleging it to be running through the property of the defendants. 3. The defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that the plainti