JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit in O.S.No.1525/2005 for injunction based on a grant over B and C schedule pathway as per their document of title of A schedule property exhibited as Ext.A1. The connected suit O.S.No.1630/2005 filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction for removal of pipes drawn through B schedule property. In both the suits, B schedule is one and the same property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and it was confirmed in appeal. The connected suit was decreed and it was confirmed in appeal. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiffs in the leading case came up with these two appeals. The parties are referred in their status in the leading case i.e. O.S.No.1525/2005. 2. The questions came up for consideration in this appeal are : (1) What would the effect of Section 47 of the Indian Easement Act, dealing with extinction of easement and what are the requirement thereof ? (2) Whether the trial court and the First Appellate court went wrong in applying the legal position in its correct perspective ? 3. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the defendants are claiming their respective title over the registered holding inclusive of the right over B and C schedule property from a common ancestor Ramachandran, from whom the plaintiffs obtained their registered holding under Ext.A1 deed with the grant of way through B and C schedule. It is earlier in point of time executed in the year 1995. Admittedly, the defendants purchased their registered holding subsequently in the year 1998 from the very same ancestor Ramachandran. So whatever may be the clauses, depositions, terms, conditions and obligations attached to the property transferred under Ext.A1 sale deed would be binding on the subsequent purchaser of the remaining extent from the same common ancestor Ramachandran, based on which it was argued that the grant made under Ext.A1 over B and C schedule way would be binding on the defendants. 4. The defendants contested the suit that at the time of purchase of the property, there were compound wall and teak trees around their property and no objection was raised at any point of time by the plaintiffs and the inaction on the part of the plaintiffs would amount to waiver of the right if any over the property. 5. 4. The defendants contested the suit that at the time of purchase of the property, there were compound wall and teak trees around their property and no objection was raised at any point of time by the plaintiffs and the inaction on the part of the plaintiffs would amount to waiver of the right if any over the property. 5. Going by the provisions contained in the Indian Easement Act, 1882 (for short the Act) it is clear that there is a specific provision incorporated in the Act dealing with the extinction of easement. When there is a provision dealing with extinction of easement with certain mandate, there cannot be any application of doctrine of estoppel by conduct overlooking and overturning the mandate under the provision. When the statutory provision demands compliance of certain requirement for extinction of a right, the statutory requirement cannot be byepassed under the guise of estoppel by conduct unless the same constitutes the statutory requirement. When the statutory provision dealing with extinction of easement demands compliance of certain requirement, there cannot be any dilution of the said requirement by applying the doctrine of latches, doctrine of acquiescence or estoppel by conduct. Section 47 of the Act demands compliance of certain requirements -a total cessation of enjoyment for an unbroken period of 20 years. The said mandate cannot be diluted by applying either the doctrine of estoppel by conduct or by the doctrine of acquiescence. No survey commission was deputed to locate the B and C schedule property and for the determination of whether the compound wall constructed obstructs either partially or completely the user of B and C schedule way. 6. In the said circumstances, it is fit and proper to afford an opportunity to both the parties to issue a survey commission to locate the B and C schedule property in relation to the registered holding of both the parties and also the existence of permanent structures such as compound wall, trees and its character, nature and age etc.. For that purpose, the judgment and decree of both the trial court and the First Appellate court are set aside. Both the suits are remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 18.03.2019. For that purpose, the judgment and decree of both the trial court and the First Appellate court are set aside. Both the suits are remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 18.03.2019. The trial court shall issue a survey commission at the earliest so as to have a disposal of the matter within a time schedule of six months from the date of appearance of parties and shall report compliance thereof to this court. Both the appeals are allowed in part accordingly. No order as to costs of appeal.