IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.132 of 2009 1.Mumtaz Ali. 2.Mustafa Ali. 3.Teyab Hussain @ Seyad Hussain. 4.Azad Ali. All Sons of Haidar Ali @ Haidar Mian. 5.Haidar Ali @ Haidar Mian, Son of Late Abdul Haque Mian. All R/o Village-Haziapur,P.S.-Gopalganj,P.O.- Gopalganj,District-Gopalganj. ---------------------------Defendant-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1.Jabbar Mian . 2.Gaffar Mian. Both Sons of Late Hanif Mian. 3.Tuli Khatoon, Widow of Late Mubark Mian. 4.Anwar Mian. 5.Jahirul Mian. Both Sons of Late Mubark Mian. 6.Dhanu Mian. 7.Manu Mian. 8.Ladu Mian. All Minor Sons of Late Mubark Mian.Under the Guardianship of Tuli Khatoon. Mother and natural Guardian. 9.Subuk Tara Minor daughter of Late Mubark Mian under the Guardianship of Tuli Khatoon Mother and natural Guardian. 10.Ali Imam Mian S/o Late Juman Mian. 11.Most. Safila Khatoon, Widow of Late Ali Hassan Mian. 12.Maimun Nasa Widow of Late Kifayat Mian. 2 13.Hafijullah, S/o Late Kifayat Mian. 14.Laila Khatoon, Daughter of Late Kifayat Mian. 15.Manju Khatoon, Daughter of Late Kifayat Mian. 16.Hajara Khatoon, Daughter of Late Kifayat Mian. 17.Tunna Khatoon, Daughter of Late Kifayat Mian. 18.Islam Mian, S/o Late Dahari Mian. 19.Rajju Mian, S/o Late Dahari Mian. 20.Fatima Khatoon. 21.Hazara Khatoon. 22.Papuli Khatoon. 23.Quoraisa Khatoon. 1 to 22 All daughters of Late Dahari Mian, All Residents of Village- Haziapur, P.S.-Gopalganj, P.O.-Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. --------------------------Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 7. 28.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 16th of December, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. IV, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No.13/94/87/08 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25th January, 1994 by Munsif, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 308 of 1988 filed by the plaintiffs for seeking a right of easement over the suit land described in Schedule I of the plaint. 3 The case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint, in short, is that the land of Plot No.943 of Khata No. 174 fully described in Schedule I of the plaint is the DIH BASGIT land of defendant no.1 and the same is being used by the plaintiff and his family members and also by his neighbors as „Rasta‟ from time immemorial for coming and going out from their houses and for flowing the drain water. It has been further averred in the plaint that the defendants forcibly constructed a boundary wall over 3 ½ Dhurs of Plot No. 943 and thereby partly obstructed the use of the suit land by the plaintiffs and denied the right as claimed by the plaintiff which has led to the filing of this suit. Contesting the aforesaid claim of the plaintiffs the defendants by filing written statement have asserted that the suit land is the DIH BASGIT land of the defendants and the same has never been used by the plaintiff or his family members or his neighbors as „Rasta‟ and further no right of easement has been acquired by the plaintiffs. The defendants have further asserted that there is another alternative „Rasta‟ in existence and as such the relief prayed by the plaintiffs are not tenable. After hearing the parties and considering the 4 evidence on record, the learned Munsif came to the finding that the plaintiffs had been using the suit plot as „Rasta‟ as claimed and further also held that the story of existence of another Rasta as propounded by the defendants could not be established. As such after recording the finding of the acquisition of right of easement in favour of the plaintiffs the learned Munsif decreed the suit. In appeal by the defendants the appellate court below considered the submissions of the parties as well as the evidence on record and has come to the finding that the plaintiffs have been using Plot No.943 as Rasta at least from the year 1956 for going to the main road and have acquired the right of easement for their ingress and outgress as well as for flowing the drain water. The learned appellate court below concurring with the findings of the trial court has also concluded that there is no alternative “Rasta” available to the plaintiffs as has been asserted by the defendants. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and considering the impugned judgments there does not appear to be any illegality or error much less any substantial questions of law arising for 5 consideration in this second appeal. The matter has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact. Accordingly, this appeal is, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)