IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2008 Shri Moinuddin Suleman Kazi ...Appellant. v. Shri Manzoor Ahmed Rashid Madni ...Respondent. Mr.V.A.Londhe, adv. For the Appellant. Mr. Surel S. Shah, adv. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 5th August , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the present appellant/ original plaintiff and the respondent, who is the original defendant. Plaintiff and defendant both had purchased one plot each. Each plot was East-West 133 ft. and North-South 75 ft. Plot of the defendant is to the West of the plot of the plaintiff. There is a public road in front of plot of the plaintiff towards the Southern side. Defendant has to pass through the plot of plaintiff to approach that road and this fact was mentioned in the sale deeds also. However, in the sale deeds there were no mention of the width of the passage, which would be available to the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.459/03 with a map suggesting that 2 ft. wide passage from the boundary of the plot of the plaintiff, as shown in the map, would be reasonable and that passage should be set out for the - 2- purpose of the use of the defendant. It was not acceptable to the defendant. The trial Court passed the judgment and declared that defendant has right of passage of two feet width through the premises owned by the plaintiff. That order was challenged by the defendant in the regular civil appeal no.50/05. According to him, the passage approved by the trial Court was not sufficient. District Court allowed the appeal and came to conclusion that width of the passage shall be 4 ft. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 2 As pointed out, size of the plots of the plaintiff and defendants are mentioned earlier. Admittedly, defendant has to walk through the plot of the plaintiff from the Southern side just for about 7-10 ft. Two feet wide passage would hardly be sufficient for walking of one person. Taking into consideration the size of the plots and the admitted fact that defendant is entitled to have the easementary right of way by necessity, it is difficult to find any fault with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. No question of law is involved in the present appeal. 3 Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)