1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 208 of 2011 Deoram s/o Tukaram Hatzade (dead thr.L.Rs. Hetram Deoram Hatzade & ors.) ...Versus... Tejram s/o Soma Hatzade Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.S. Talmale Advocate for the appellant. ... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 14.06.2011. This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below that the parties to the suit were closely related and took shares in the ancestral property. The dispute as to the right of their way arose. The appellant has two alternate ways. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before me that though alternate way from Survey No. 276 would be available to approach Survey No. 244, fact remains that the said field is not owned by him but is owned by his wife, which was purchased in the year 1989. According to the learned counsel the appellant cannot be forced to use the way through the field of his wife. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I find that it is not shown that the wife is separated from her husband and, therefore, under Hindu Law she is in the unit of the appellant. Therefore, to say that the appellant cannot be forced to use the way through the field of his wife, but to use the way in question which is claimed by him through the field of his cousin, has been rightly found by the courts below as not an easement of necessity. In my opinion, the appellant cannot be allowed to trouble others. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Judge /TA/