TRILOK PAL SINGH Vs. BANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit on the basis of easement of necessity. This was decreed. This judgment passed by the trial Court has been reversed. This is how this Second Appeal has come to be filed. The brief facts are as under :

(2.) THE parties to this litigation arc related. This is so stated in para 1 and 2 of the plaint. The plaintiff's case was that they had been using a passage since long and as this was sought to be blocked the necessity to file the suit arose. It was claimed that there is no other passage available to them. The trial Court recorded a findings to the effect.

(3.) IT may be seen that in the pleading paras 1 and 2, it has categorically said that the passage was being used for more than 40 years. It is stated that even the ancestors were using it. In the statement of plaintiff P.W. 1, he has stated that they have been using it for ever (HAMESHA SE). The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on one line in the statement that Panchas got the settlement effected. This line is being read in isolation. On proper reading of the pleadings and the statement of the plaintiff, it is clear user for about 40 years was pleaded. In any case, the finding given by the trial Court with regard to easement of necessity cannot be taken exception to. There is no other passage available to the appellant. This appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the Court below is set aside and that of trial Court is restored. There would be no order as to costs.