SHASHIKANT NARAYAN SAUDAGAR Vs. SRIKRISHNA YESHWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) I have heard Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the the Respondents at length.

(3.) DEALING with the first substantial question of law referred to herein above, on perusal of the evidence on record as well as the findings of the learned Judge, I find that there is no material produced by the Respondents to establish their claim of easementary right of prescription to use the said access through the property of the Appellants to proceed to the said W.C. The learned Counsel have not pointed out under what provisions of law such right of prescription was claimed by the Respondents to proceed to the W.C. located in his own property through the property of the Appellants. It is an admitted fact that the property surveyed under no. 192/1 has been allotted to the Respondents and they have also constructed a house therein. As far as the property surveyed under no. 185/1 is concerned, it cannot be considered to be contemporaneous to the ancestral house and, in any event, the Respondents have failed to establish any right to proceed to the W.C. through the property of the Appellants. Considering the said aspects, the Courts below were not justified from restraining the Appellants from obstructing the Respondents from using the said means of access to the said W.C. The pleadings of the Respondents are also silent with right to such claim of any right recognised in law. To that extent, the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.