PRITHVI RAJ Vs. GOPILAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff -Prithvi Raj S/o Sh. Tak Chand, who was in possession of agricultural land of Khasra Nos. 1394 and 1395, which he purchased from one Chunnilal Rav, aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FT), Rajsamand, whereby the First Appeal No. 60/2007 (32/2000) - Prithvi Raj Vs. Gopilal & Ors., was dismissed while upholding the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Railmagra, rejecting the plaintiffs Suit No. 1/1995 - Prithvi Raj Vs. Gopilal & Ors., for claiming easmentary right with respect to passage/way to his agricultural land though Khasra Nos. 1390, 1391 of the defendants in Village Gawadi, Tehsil: Railmagra, District: Rajsamand.

(2.) THE findings of the learned trial court in this respect while partly giving relief to the plaintiff on the relevant issue are quoted herein below for ready reference: -

(3.) MR . B.L. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiffs submitted that the relevant evidence was not considered by the learned trial court in proper manner and there was also a report of Patwari (Mangilal) dated 10.06.1994 (Exhibit -20) before the learned trial court, which clearly mentioned that there was a passage or way up to the Well ('Kuwa') situated in Khasra No. 1389 of the defendants and since both the parties, plaintiff and defendants, had purchased respective fields from the same seller i.e. Sh. Chunnilal Rav, therefore, the passage up to said Well and further a way to village road, however, the courts below could not have refused the same. He also submitted that the courts below have also erred in holding that the plaintiff/appellant had an alternative passage through Khasra No. 1382 up to the agricultural field of plaintiff situated in Khasra Nos. 1394 and 1395.