KESRICHAND Vs. CHANANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for injunction was dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) THE houses of the plaintiffs and the houses of the defendants are situated close to one another. At the back of the houses of the plaintiffs there is an enclosure belonging to them. It is not connected with their houses directly although it lies adjacent to them. The case of the plaintiffs was that they used to go to this enclosure across the land belonging to the defendants, They claimed that they had an easement right of way across the land of the defendants which had been perfected. They also claimed that they had a similar easement right of way for going to Hanumanji's temple across the land of the defendants. Part of the land over which the easement right of way was claimed for going to the enclosure formerly belonged to the State. A patta of it was granted to one of the defendants, on 9-1-43. The present suit was instituted in 1947. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs ever passed through their land either for going to the enclosure or for going to Hanumanji's temple.

(3.) THE trial court held that it had not been proved that the plaintiffs used to go to hanumanji's temple across the land of the defendant. The lower appellate court also agreed with this finding of fact. It is based on the evidence on record and is not vitiated by any error of law. There can be no interference in second appeal with this finding. I accordingly dismiss the second appeal so far as the alleged easement right of way for going to Hanumanj'is temple across the land of the defendants is concerned.