VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs remained unsuccessful before the two Courts. They filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that there is a street ABCDEF in existence and the said street was being used by the plaintiffs and that they had acquired easement rights in the suit land and that the defendants be restrained from obstructing the aforesaid street or raise any construction.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants claimed that there was no street in existence as was claimed by the plaintiff. It was specifically pleaded by them that the site in question was in fact the private property of the defendants.
(3.) Both the Courts below, on the basis of the appreciation of evidence, have held that there was no such street in existence as was claimed by the plaintiffs and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and their appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court.;