JUDGMENT

The defendants came up with these appeals against the decree and judgment of both the trial court and the first appellate court by which a decree for declaration of prescriptive right of easement over the B schedule property was granted besides the grant of a prohibitory injunction.

2. RSA No.848 of 2005 is against the concurrent finding of decree and judgment rendered in O.S.No.163 of 1989 and the first appeal there under. The other appeal in RSA No.850 of 2005 is against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.216 of 1989 and the first appeal there under. The leading case is suit in O.S.No.163 of 1989. It is filed for declaration of easement right and for perpetual injunction. It was granted by both the courts below. The other suit was filed by the defendants against the plaintiff for a grant of permanent prohibitory injunction against trespass. That suit was dismissed by both the courts below, against which the defendant in the leading case, i.e. O.S.No.163 of 1989 came up with these two appeals.

3. B schedule is the way in dispute. Two set of commissioners were deputed, who in turn filed the report and rough sketch. Ext.C1 is the first rough sketch prepared and Ext.C3 is the s