PRAFULLA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. SUNAMANI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff being undeterred by the dismissal of his suit as well as appeal, has filed this appeal.

(2.) IN the suit, he has claimed that the disputed land is used as a passage to approach his Plot No. 73 from his Plot No. 79. As such an easement of necessity has been claimed in the suit. But it was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendants, although the suit land is a portion of public road. Thus, he filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants from creating hindrance to use the suit land as a passage and also for correction of record of rights.

(3.) MR . Kar has contended that both the Courts below have factually erred in holding that there is a passage in Plot No. 77. Further it has also been urged that Respondents 1 to 5 are using Plot No. 81 as the public passage. Since the requirement of easement of necessity has not been proved by the plaintiff, therefore, the decisions cited by Mr. Kar have hardly any application to the present facts. Since all these questions involved factual appreciation of evidence and there has been no palpable wrong appreciation of law, there is hardly any occasion to interfere in this appeal.