( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3621 OF 2005 Vithal s/o. Amrita Kalyankar .. Appellants died through LRs and ors. Versus Narayan s/o. Sambhaji Chabharkar & ors. .. Respondents Shri S.V. Chandole h/f. Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 10. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.11. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv.Shri S.V. Chandole h/f. Adv. Shri V.G. Sakolkar for the appellants, Adv. Shri S.S. Choudhari for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and Adv. Mrs. R.D.Reddy for respondent No.11. Present respondents are ( 2 ) original plaintiffs who filed Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 1998 for declaration that they have easementary right of cart-way through agricultural land Survey No.21/A belonging to the appellants and for injunction. Though the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 24.10.2002, in appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2002, the learned II Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded, allowed the appeal on 29.11.2004 and decreed the suit. 2. The learned advocates have taken me through the judgments of both the Courts. Perused record and proceedings. It is observed in para 4 of the Appellate Court’s judgment that the Court appointed Court Commissioner who filed report Exh.66. The learned Jt. District Judge also visited the site and filed inspection notes. The Tahsildar visited the site and prepared panchanama Exh.170. The Dy.Collector also visited the site. His report is at Exh.164. These visits are made to ascertain if the cart track is existed on the Eastern boundary bund of Survey No.21,20 and to Southern point of Survey No.19. After going through these reports and having considered that even the Jt. ( 3 ) District Judge has observed that there was cart track which was in dilapidated condition. It was held that the cart track did exist as alleged by the plaintiffs. It is also observed that even brother of defendant No. 1 and 2, who is defendant No.3, has also given clear admission before the Tahsildar, who had enquired into the matter, that there was cart way towards Eastern side of Survey No. 20 and 21. This admission of defendant Nos. 3 is very important. It is also noted that after said statement, defendant No.3 has supported the case made out by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The District Court has considered oral evidence in detail. Both sides have led oral evidence. Ultimately in para 9 of the judgment the District Court observed that absolutely there was no reason to disbelieve the reports of the Court Commissioner, the Jt. District Judge, the Tahsildar and other revenue officers who visited the site and ultimately conclusion was drawn that the cart track did exist. It was old cart track used as customary way. It is also observed that the cart track becomes easement on necessity so far as Survey Nos. 19 and 20 are concerned. If the existence of cart-way is ( 4 ) not accepted then the said lands would be land-locked. 3. After going through the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and after giving due consideration to the statements made before this Court, in my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the District Court are reasonable, proper and based on evidence. They cannot be called perverse. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 4. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No.3621 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUL09/sa521.05