1. The plaintiff does not allege in his plaint that the path over the defendant’s land is a public right of way, but only that he as a resident villager of Rajapuram and the other villagers of Rajapuram have a right of way over the path. The objections, therefore, to the suit urged by the appellant on the strength of the decisions in Adamson v. Arumugam 9 M. 463 and Siddeswara v. Krishna 14 M. 177, have no application. Though the word “easement” is not used in the plaint, the allegations in it show that the right is claimed as an easement which the plaintiff as a resident of the village has to use the path. In this view we think that the suit is maintainable by the plaintiff on his own behalf and that it was open to the District Judge to allow the amendment of the plaint so as to limit the plaintiff’s claim to the easement which he alleges that he has.
2. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.