(Spl.-H.C.A.S.,C.D.,78-e) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Note, Office Memoranda of Quorum, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Guru Shiroodkar, advocate for the appellants. Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri P. A. Kholkar, advocate for respondent nos.1(a) to 1(f) and 2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 26th February, 2004 P.C.: Both the courts below have found that the appellants have not be able to prove that they were using the pathway which runs through the respondents’ property and, have therefore, held that the appellants do not have the right of way by necessity. Both the Courts have considered the fact that the predecessors-in-title of the appellants and the respondents were different and, therefore, the question of right of easement of necessity did not arise. There are - 2 - no substantial questions of law involved in the present case. The reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Hari Nath Tilhari, J., Hari Nath Tilhari, J., Hari Nath Tilhari, J., Puttegowda Puttegowda Puttegowda @ Ajjegowda vs. @ Ajjegowda vs. @ Ajjegowda vs. Ramegowda Ramegowda Ramegowda, 1996(3) Civil L.J. 571, is also of not much help to the appellants. Appeal dismissed. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. mc.