1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2007 (Maganlal Shyamji Dhandhukiya and others .v. Gangubai Ghanshamdas Agrawal and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. 21ST JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration of right of easement of necessity to go through the property which is described as Property No. 2 in the plaint map (Exh.67) to go to the property No.3 as shown in the map. It is not disputed that the Property Nos.2 and 3 originally belonged to defendants' family, and the Property No.2 fell to the share of defendant No.2 while Property No.3 fell to the share of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 filed a suit against the occupiers of property No.2 i.e. Gunwantrai and Rasiklal, sons of the original plaintiff – Maganlal. A decree for ejectment has been passed against both of them after the property came to Gangubai. The plaintiff claims that he has right 2 to approach Property No.3 through property No.2 which is a shop known as “Kalpana Stores” belonging to the defendant No.1. The property is not now in possession of the plaintiff or his sons Gunwantrai and others. Naturally, they have no right over the said property. A suit was already filed and in spite of knowledge, the plaintiff chose to purchase the property No.3 from Rameshwar Agrawal. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that to the southern side of the property, there is a way available to the plaintiff to approach his property. Since an alternative way is available to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no right to claim a specific way as per his choice even though the alternate way is not convenient for him. In case of easement of necessity, the Court is not required to look into the convenience of the plaintiff. What the Court is required to look into is as to whether the right way is available or not. Since there are two concurrent findings of the Courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE *rrg.