Judgment :- appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any vehicle through A schedule property. Additional Munsiff, Kasaragod dismissed the suit holding that the pathway in question is being used by the people of the locality and so the plaintiff is not entitled to the injuction sought in the suit. This finding has been confirmed by the Sub Judge, Kasaragod in A.S.3 of 1986. 2. Contention of the plaintiff is that there existed previously only a foot path through his property, that it belonged to him exclusively, that he widened the same and that defendants have no right to take any vehicle through it. The Courts below held that there existed a public pathway with two feet width through A schedule property. Both the Courts also repelled the plaintiff's contention that it was he who widened the road. The Sub Judge held that even if pathway was widened at the instance of the plaintiff, he cannot claim exclusive possession over the widened portion. 3. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that there existed a pathway having width of two feet through plaint A schedule and that it was widened by the people of the locality, the question that arises for consideration is whether plaintiff is entitled to seek injunction restraining the defendants from taking vehicles through the road. As the evidence in the case discloses the fact that there existed a public pathway through plaint A schedule, even if the plaintiff had to surrender portion of his property for converting the pathway into a road it cannot be retained as his private properly. Plaintiff's contention that the foot path with two feet width as it existed be fore widening of the same alone can be used by the defendants and that they cannot use the remaining portion of the road cannot be accepted due to its sheer impracticability. Plaintiffs claim that he alone can use vehicles through the road as the existing foot path was widened by surrendering portion of his property and that defendant do not have that right deserves to be rejected as the widening of the road ensures to the benefit of the general public. 4. Plaintiffs claim that he alone can use vehicles through the road as the existing foot path was widened by surrendering portion of his property and that defendant do not have that right deserves to be rejected as the widening of the road ensures to the benefit of the general public. 4. As there is evidence that the foot path with two feet width was widened and as plaintiffs contention that it was he who widened the same for his exclusive use has been found against by the Sub Judge, it has to be held that it retains the public character. As there is no evidence of plaintiff raising any protest when the foot path was widened by the public and as his acquiescence resulted in the construction of the road, there can very well be a presumption that the dedicated portion of his property for widening the road. Plaintiff cannot lake the stand that he has not assigned or surrendered any portion of the property for widening the road and so the ownership continues with him and hence he is entitled to prevent vehicles from passing through the property. Even if portion of land belonging to the plaintiff has been used Reconverting the foot path into a road, he cannot deal with that portion as he likes to the detriment of the public. Even if the ownership of the portion of the land would continue with the plaintiff, he cannot do anything prejudical to the interests of the public. 5. As the evidence in the case discloses that there existed a public pathway with two feet width through plaint A schedule and as it was widened by the people of the locality utilising portion of plaintiff's property, it does not lose its characteristics as a way used by the public. Merely because the pathway was widened using portion of the plaintiff's properly right of enjoyment of the same by the public cannot be denied. The Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.