J U D G M E N T

The appeal is by the 1^st defendant, non-suited concurrently in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff claiming right of easement by prescription. The plaintiff contended that he has a right of easement by prescription over item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, whereas item No.1 is in his possession. The plaintiff further contended that the pathway in existence was from time immemorial as used by his predecessor and now by him. In support of his plea that item No.2 pathway was being used for ingress and egress to item No.1, the plaintiff examined an independent witness as PW2. The 1^st defendant / appellant resisted the suit by raising a dispute regarding the identity of the pathway in question. It was further contended that the pathway was closed down in the year

2001, thereafter, the plaintiff was not using the same. It was further contended that the pathway was carved out only for the exclusive use of the defendants and that the plaintiff does not have any right over the same. The trial court on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit and restrained the defendants, obstructing the plaintiff from using item No.2 nor changing the nature and lie of the pr