The right of way established by the compromise document persists despite the purchase of the underlying property by another party.

1 This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. The suit was for declaration of their right of way over the plaint property and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with that right. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. R. S. No. 33/1 belonged in jemmom to Iyyakkat Illom. The northern portion of this property adjoining the public road was demised on kuzhikanom to one Moosa who transferred that right to one Abdulla. Plaintiffs were in possession of the southern property under a kanom from the Illom. The plaintiffs' right of way to the public road lay through the northern portion of the property held by Abdulla. Abdulla attempted to obstruct this right of way. Plaintiffs therefore instituted the suit in O. S. No. 499/1947 in the Taliparamba Munsiff's Court for establishing their right of way but the suit was subsequently compromised by Ext. A 3. Under Ext. A 3, it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiffs would have a right of way to the public road along the eastern most portion of Abdulla's holding with a width of 1 1/2 carpenters' kole. Later on the defendant got an assignment of the right of Abdulla in the property. On the allegation that the defendant was attempting to obstruct the pathway by putting up a building after demolishing the old building in the property, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration of their right of way as well as for an injunction to restrain their defendant from obstructing them in the user of their right of way.

2 The main contention of the defendant was that he had no knowledge of the existence of the right of way; and he also questioned the right of the plaintiffs to use the property for the purpose of going to the road.

3 The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have a right of way over Abdulla's property, that that right was granted to them by Ext. A 3 compromise and that the right of way lay along the plots marked A 1 and A in the commissioner's plan Ext. C 1. Bat that court came to the conclusion that because the defendant had purchased the jenmom right in respect of the property also there was a merger of the kanom right in the jenmom right and therefore the plaintiffs could not assert their right against the defendant. In this view of the matter the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. There was an appeal by the plaintiffs and the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the Trial Court and granted a decree to the plaintiffs, But the right of way granted by the lower appellate court was not over plots A 1 and A but over plots A 1 and B in Ext. C 1 plan. It is this decree which is being challenged by the plaintiffs in this appeal.

4 The points for decision in this appeal are:- (1) the location of the pathway in the defendant's property, and (2) whether in law the plaintiffs have lost the right of way after the defendant has purchased the jenmom right of the property.

5 On the first question the definite finding of the Trial Court was that the way lay through plots A 1 and A in Ext. C 1 plan. The commissioner who went to the spot and measured the property was also of opinion that the pathway granted under Ext. A 3 lies over plots A 1 and A, and he has marked it in his plan Ext. C 1. The finding of the Trial Court that the pathway lies over plots A 1 and A is reinforced by its further finding that plots B and C are not included in Abdulla's holding, but belong to a different person. The question whether plots B and C belong to and was in the possession of Abdulla assumes importance in view of the description of the pathway in Ext. A 3. Ext. A 3 shows that the width of the way granted was 1 1/2 carpenters' kole. The description of the pathway in Ext. A 3 would indicate that that pathway was to be along the eastern end of the property which was in possession of Abdulla. From the commissioner's report it will be found that plots B and C are not included in S. No. 33/1. The property which was in the pos