1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.9/2008 Pemaram vs Jiwan Ram & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : -18.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RK Soni,for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff-appellant is against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two courts below in judgments and decrees dated 12th April, 2004 and 7th Dec., 2005 recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court respectively. According to learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant it is true that two courts below concurrently held that plaintiff is not owner of the property in dispute but he also claimed his right of way over the land in question. The plaintiff can maintain the suit for protecting his right of way which is his right by virtue of long user of way since last 60 years. It appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiff in his plaint stated that he is in possession of the property in dispute over which he is claiming that his way is there. He vaguely also stated that it is his ownership land. The two courts 2 below concurrently held that neither the title vest in plaintiff nor plaintiff is in possession of the said property. The plaintiff also miserably failed to prove that this is the only way so as to claim any right on the basis of easement of necessity then so far as the plaintiff's contention that it is his easementary right on the basis of perspective right is concerned, I do not find that there is any sufficient evidence to prove this fact also. I do not find that there is any substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-