(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was one for declaration of plaintiffs' right of easement by prescription to use plaint 'B' and 'C schedule properties, forming part of 'A' schedule, and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their enjoyment over 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. Suit claims were resisted by the defendants, the 1st defendant separately, and the rest, defendants 2 to 4 jointly, filing written statements, with the latter among them setting forth a counter-claim for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs over portions of plaint 'A' schedule property scheduling them separately as 'D' schedule 1 and 2 and 'E' schedule. The trial court partly decreed the plaint claim declaring the right of the plaintiffs to use 'C' schedule pathway and also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing such use. Counter-claims raised by defendants 2 to 4 were also partly decreed (i) allowing demarcation of the counter-claim scheduled properties in 'A' schedule from the portion of the property occupied by the plaintiffs, in accordance with and as determined under Ext.C-2(a) plan prepared by the advocate commissioner.
(2.) Pursuant to the dismissal of the review petition, plaintiffs instituted the present suit for declaring their right to amenities attached to kudikidappu, over plaint 'B' schedule--some structures adjoining to the kudikidappu building, namely, a fuel cum lumber shed, terraced bathroom cum closet, septic tank and a well, and easement by prescription attached to kudikidappu over 'C schedule, described as a pathway having a width of 8 links and length of 11.45 meters passing through 'A' schedule property from the road to the building occupied by them. Declaration of the rights of kudikidappukaran over the amenities attached and easement by prescription in 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants from obstructing their enjoyment over the same, was applied for. Suit being decreed only in part with respect to use of 'C' schedule pathway, that alone, and dismissed on other claims canvassed, and the counter-claims raised by the contesting defendants partly decreed, and with such decision of the trial court approved by the first appellate court as well dismissing the appeal, feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up with this second appeal.
(3.) Formulating the following substantial question of law, notice was ordered to the respondents.