Judgment :- 1. Second appeal is by the plaintiffs, in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, who lost in both the courts below. 2. The suit property is nearly two acres of land, which is admittedly owned and possessed by the appellants. Respondents are the adjacent owners. They are sought to be injuncted from taking forcible possession of the suit property or disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellants on the allegation that they are going to take possession by force. Respondents denied these allegations and admitted the title and possession of the appellants. Their only defence is that there is a pathway through the plaint schedule property, over which they acquired a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to their property and building and the object of the present suit is only to deprive them of that right under the cover of injunction without disclosing the real facts. Issue No.2 is concerning the easement right. 3. Trial court as well as the appellate court found on the evidence that there is a pathway through the plaint schedule property which is being used by the respondents. So also, the finding is that except the user of the pathway, respondents never interfered with the proprietary rights of the appellants giving rise to a cause of action for injunction. There is no serious dispute on these aspects, except denial of the easement right coupled with a contention that user of the pathway is only by way of permission which was withdrawn and not as of right. The main contention of the appellants is that a prescriptive right of easement cannot be accepted as a defence in a suit for-injunction and the only remedies open to the respondents are to establish the right by way of counter claim or a declaratory relief in a suit. Rejecting these contentions, trial court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents acquired a prescriptive easement right. But the appellate court disagreed and said that without a counter claim the prescriptive easement right cannot be considered by way of defence. The finding of prescriptive easement right was vacated and Issue No.2 was deleted as unnecessary since the suit is one for injunction where possession alone is material. But the dismissal of the suit was confirmed on the finding that respondents are using the pathway and they cannot be restrained. 4. The finding of prescriptive easement right was vacated and Issue No.2 was deleted as unnecessary since the suit is one for injunction where possession alone is material. But the dismissal of the suit was confirmed on the finding that respondents are using the pathway and they cannot be restrained. 4. The only substantial question of law argued for entertaining this second appeal is whether the dismissal of the suit is justified as such a claim was put forward only byway of defence without a counter claim or a suit. Reliance was placed on the decision in D. Ramanatha Gupta v. S. Razaack (AIR 1982 Karnataka 314), which held that a right of easement by prescription cannot become absolute unless the right has been contested in a suit and that easement is not complete merely upon the affliction of the period of 20 years. That decision also said that however long the actual period of enjoyment may be, no absolute or indefeasible right can be acquired until the right is brought in question in some suit, and until it is not so brought in question, the right is inchoate only and in order to establish it when brought in question, the enjoyment relied on, must be an enjoyment for 20 years up to within two years of the institution of the suit. We are not at that question now in view of the stand taken by the District Judge, on which I have my own reservations. 5. But that was a suit for injunction based on a prescriptive easement right for inflow of air and light through the windows and ventilators. The suit was dismissed on the ground that it is only for injunction and not for declaration of the easement right. Easement right in that case was not put forward by way of defence by the defendant but brought by way of offence by the plaintiffs to get injunction without a declaration. With due respect, I cannot agree to that proposition also. Whether easement right is claimed by way of offence in any action in support of the prayer for injunction or by way of defence to resist the claim for injunction, the question to be considered is whether the injunction could be allowed or not. Proof of existence or non-existence of that right alone is necessary to grant or refuse the prayer. Proof of existence or non-existence of that right alone is necessary to grant or refuse the prayer. It may not be correct to say that without the right being legally declared on the basis of a prayer the injunction cannot be allowed or refused. That decision is no authority for the position that in an injunction suit, an easement right will not stand as a defence without a counter claim or fresh suit to establish that right. 6. In this case, there is the concurrent factual finding that the respondents are in use of that right. User is admitted also. Dispute is only whether it is as of right or by way of permission. The finding of user cannot be assailed in second appeal. What remains to be decided is only whether the user has matured into prescriptive right or not. Suit for injunction is not.against such user. What is sought is an omnibus injunction against trespass and possession into the entire property and thus achieve the object indirectly. Injunction is a discretionary remedy and one who approaches the court with such a relief must come with clean hands. Suppression of facts and ingenious moulding of the relief will disentitle him to the relief. The District Judge was not at all justified in vacating the finding of the trial court regarding the easement right or in deleting the issue. A counter claim or declaration in a suit is not necessary to oppose the prayer for injunction in a suit by way of defence on the basis of an easement right. The correctness of the defence had to be considered by the Appellate Judge when the parties joined issue, let in evidence and the trial judge decided it. No law prevents such a defence being considered in order to reject the plaint claim. Counter claim itself could be a defence. The difference is only marginal and they can overlap also. If such a defence is not allowed to betaken without a counter claim or a decree, absurd results may follow. Whenever an enforceable claim, whether declaratory or executable, is put forward byway of defence to resist the plaint claim, that defence will have to be rejected if there is no decree in favour of the defendant or he did not raise it as a counter claim. It can be made applicable to claim of rival title also. Whenever an enforceable claim, whether declaratory or executable, is put forward byway of defence to resist the plaint claim, that defence will have to be rejected if there is no decree in favour of the defendant or he did not raise it as a counter claim. It can be made applicable to claim of rival title also. That is not the law. Anyhow, the District Judge confirmed the decree. The order vacating the finding of the trial court will not, therefore, operate as res judicata also. Therefore, it is not necessary to pursue the matter further in this case. 7. Even an inchoate right which is at the stage of user alone without having matured into a prescriptive right is a right that will be protected by a court of law in a deserving case against invasion within the limits of law just like the possessory title of a person who has not acquired full right That right could be put forward as a sword as well as shield within permissible limits. In this case, what the respondents claimed and what the trial court allowed was a prescriptive right of easement and not a mere inchoate right The Appellate Judge also agreed with the user. User is even now continuing. It is something which could be tacked on to decide the maturity of the right when such a question arises. The finding regarding acquisition of the right was vacated only on the ground that it is unnecessary and it cannot be declared without a counter claim. Such a conclusion was arrived at on the contention of the appellants. Therefore, now we are not in a position to say that it matured into a prescriptive right or not. Without deciding that question, an injunction, at any rate, cannot be given. No substantial question of law is involved for entertaining the second appeal. Interested parties will be at liberty to agitate that matter in appropriate proceedings. Second appeal is dismissed in limine. Dismissed.