Appellate Court decreed the suit excluding two feet width of land as the intervening way between the public roads lying on the western and eastern side. Ext.B2 document was produced to show an earlier litigation wherein the width of way is shown as 5 1/2 feet (5 feet 6 inches). But there was failure to show that the way mentioned in Ext.B2 is the way in dispute in the instant suit. Hence, the defendants pressed for a remand of the matter so as to issue a survey commission. Needless to say that no counter claim was raised by the defendants. The existence of way is not in dispute. Now what is left out as the way is a strip of land having only a width of two feet. Even for passage, either by foot or otherwise, a two feet width of land is not sufficient. The fact that both the Trial court and the First Appellate Court found a strip of land lying as a way itself would show the existence of a way through the property of the plaintiff, but granted only a two feet width land as means of access. It is quite insufficient, especially when read along with the provisions contained in the Indian Easement Act dealing with incidents of easement of way under Sections 23 and 28 of the said Act. The way provided, or in use was capable of giving a free user which stands for the required width of the way enabling to use
