1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.71/2008 (Damodar Das Vs. Ram Chandra) Date of order : 09.09.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Vishal Saraswat, for the appellant. In this second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., the defendant-appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Nagaur in Civil Regular Appeal No.1/2001 whereby the learned appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2000 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagaur in Civil Suit No.5/1999 (81/1987) by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and on the basis of easementary right, way to the field of plaintiff-respondent situated in Khasra No.432 is ordered to be opened, which is mentioned in the map of suit Ex.2 and further a decree for permanent injunction was passed that the defendant-appellant shall not create any disturbance in the way. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit before the trial Court for permanent injunction and declaration that his field is situated in Khasra No.432 Rakba 22 Bigha 4 biswa Mundwa District Nagaur and for entering into the filed there is a way which is in existence since last many many years but defendant is creating obstruction and trying to close the way and including the land in his field. The trail Court after framing five issues held that way in question which is going towards the plaintiff – respondent's agriculture field is in existence from last many many years and it cannot be closed because plaintiff is having easementary rights of the way. The trial Court after recording cogent evidence and taking into consideration the various documents decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff- respondent and discarded the plea of the defendant- appellant. Against which, an appeal was preferred before the appellate Court and the appellate Court too rejected the appeal filed by the present appellant. In my opinion, the concurrent finding given by both the courts below does not require any interference because both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly held that there is easementary rights in favor of the plaintiff- 3 respondent to have a way for his agriculture field situated in Khasra No.432 at village Mundwa District Nagaur. In this view of the matter, the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below does not require any interference inasmuch as no substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court in this second appeal. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun