well, and it stops there. To access it from the plaintiff's property a pathway was necessary. But the point is not about whether the pathway ceases to be a pathway because the well has fell into disuse, but more about how the parties understood it. Here, the defendant does not trouble the court. She had earlier filed O.S.No.585 of 2003, and the judgment of that suit, marked Ext. A.11, wherein she had asserted about existence of 5 feet wide common pathway. In the same year in which she laid the suit, she had executed Ext.B-6, 14-10-2003 as regards one half of her property in which she describes the northern boundary as the 5 feet wide common pathway, the Item No.2 of property herein. And, in 2005, she obtained a decree on her pleadings in O.S.585 of 2003, but curiously enough, some three years later she would plead that the plaintiff's right over the pathway had extinguished. The defendant traces her title through her mother, and if Ext. B.4 and Ext. B.5, under which the defendant's mother had purchased the property from its erstwhile owner is perused, it shows that the north-south measurement is given as 18 feet and it enlarges suddenly and without any legitimate basis to 24.5' on west and 26.5' on east. This discloses that the defendant had over ambitiously stretched her northern boundary well into the common lane. Though this aspect has not been adequately highlighted in the judgment of the First Appellate Court, this Court had the advantage of spotting it.
