JUDGMENT : Appellants are the legal representatives of the original defendants in O.S.No.108/1992 of the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi. The said suit was filed for declaration of the right of easement by way of prescription over plaint B schedule item, perpetual injunction and for damages. The suit was dismissed and consequently A.S.No.113/1995 was filed before the Additional District Court-III, Manjeri. 2. According to the appellants, pending first appeal, the matter was settled between the parties out of court and the respondents herein had agreed to withdraw from the appeal. Later, the appellants in the said appeal had allegedly retracted from their promise and they proceeded with the appeal and secured the impugned judgment and decree in their favour, and hence this second appeal. 3. This Court has admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum: (i) Did not the appellate court commit a grave error in granting an easement right by prescription when the evidence let in showed that the respondents were using the way as a permissive user only ? (ii) Did not the appellate court commit a grave error by granting an easementary right by prescription based on the evidence let in and the law applicable in the case?" 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Salil Narayanann and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Sri. T. Sethumadhavan. 5. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents has argued that no such terms were arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the first appeal. The present appellants, who were respondents in the first appeal, did not contest the appeal and consequently the appellants therein were heard and the impugned judgment and decree were passed. 6. In this second appeal, it could be noticed that in case the right of easement by prescription is not granted to the plaintiffs through a portion of the property of the present appellants, the plaint A schedule property, which is the dominant tenement, will get landlocked. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants after consulting the appellants, had made a proposal for carving out an access to the plaint A schedule property through the side of the property of the appellants by causing least inconvenience to the to the appellants, who are servient owners. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants after consulting the appellants, had made a proposal for carving out an access to the plaint A schedule property through the side of the property of the appellants by causing least inconvenience to the to the appellants, who are servient owners. Consequently, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the property with the aid of a Surveyor and to prepare a report and a plan for reporting about the present lie and location of the property and to ascertain the feasibility of shifting the alleged way to one end of the property of the appellants. Consequently, the Commissioner appointed by this Court visited the property with the aid of the Surveyor and prepared a report appended, with a plan for the present purpose. The said report and plan are marked as Exts.C8 and C8(a) respectively. 8. In Ext.C8(a), the Commissioner and the Surveyor has demarcated a pathway having three feet width, which starts from point B to point A, as the shortest root through which such a pathway could be carved out. The width of the said pathway is specifically mentioned as three feet in Exts.C8 and C8(a). 9. On the request forwarded by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants, after consulting the appellants, has agreed that the width of the pathway from point B to point A in Ext.C8(a) can be increased to four feet from the proposed three feet and the parties are agreeable to the same. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has even though pointed out that presently there has occurred a division of plaint A schedule whereby the pathway has to be granted to have access to the building named Kamala Bhavanam in plaint A schedule property, the same is not at all feasible. The dominant tenement shown in the plaint is plaint A schedule as such. Under Section 22 of the Easements Act, the said easement right claimed for a pathway to plaint A schedule property should only cause least disturbance to the servient owner. In such circumstances, it is not possible to grant a pathway directly to Kamala Bhavanam, especially when the access was demanded and claimed only to plaint A schedule property. 11. Under Section 22 of the Easements Act, the said easement right claimed for a pathway to plaint A schedule property should only cause least disturbance to the servient owner. In such circumstances, it is not possible to grant a pathway directly to Kamala Bhavanam, especially when the access was demanded and claimed only to plaint A schedule property. 11. Presently, the learned Senior Counsel has also consulted his parties and has agreed to fix the pathway having a width of 4 feet from point B to point A. It is the look out of the parties who have allegedly partitioned the plaint A schedule property to provide access to the respective shares from point A, through the portions of plaint A schedule property. 12. Matters being so, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court can be modified in terms of Ext.C8(a) plan, with a modification that the pathway marked by the Commissioner and the Surveyor in Ext.C8(a) from point B to point A should have a width of four feet instead of three feet shown in Ext.C8(a). In the result, this Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The court below shall depute the Commissioner once again to the site, with the aid of the Surveyor, in order to carve out the pathway from point B to point A, as contained in Ext.C8(a) plan, by giving a width of four feet, instead of three feet shown in Ext.C8(a). The trees that may be found standing in the said four feet width pathway from point B to point A, shall be cut and removed by the appellants. The respondents shall pay the Commission bata of Rs. 3,000/- to the Commissioner and Rs. 1,000/- to the Surveyor, who will be assisting the Commissioner as joint Commissioner. In the nature of this appeal, the parties shall bear their respective costs. All interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed. This Court records its deep appreciation in the genuine efforts taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, in getting the matter settled as aforesaid.