1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 373/2005 Harichand s/o Motiram Lahane & another ..V/s.. Kisan Ganpat Mali& Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE:- 18 th June, 2007 . Heard Mr. Sohoni, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kilor, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from obstructing their right of way from the field of the defendants. The present appellants as well as several other plaintiffs had filed suit and prayed for the aforesaid injunction. The trial Court, after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, partly decreed the suit and declared that the plaintiffs had right to use Southern side 2 Dhura of the defendants' field to use as cart-way when the crops were not standing in the defendants' field. The Court further held that when the crops were standing in the defendants' field, the plaintiffs would have right to use only Southern side of the defendants' field as path way to approach their fields. The defendants filed appeal challenging the judgment passed by the trial Court. The appellants had filed cross- objection in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/2001 filed by the defendants. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal with costs and the cross-objection filed by the present appellants was dismissed. The appellate Court came to the conclusion on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record that there was an alternate way to approach the present appellants' field and, therefore, the appellants could not have claimed right of way through the defendants' field as easement of necessity. While recording the aforesaid evidence, certain admissions of the plaintiffs' witnesses in their cross-examination were considered by the appellate 3 Court along with other oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The findings recorded by the Court are findings of fact and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to the cost. JUDGE kahale