1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 293/2006 (Pramilabai Eknath Navthale & anr. Vs. Kiranbai Suresh Baniya & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 16 th JUNE, 2008. Heard Shri Wankhede for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the defendants did not have any right to approach their field through the field of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed damages from the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were the owners of the field Survey No. 36/5 admeasuring 1 hectare and 33 R. According to the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs had sown the crops of Jwar in their land, the defendant no.1, with the help of a servant, took a bullock-cart from the field of the plaintiffs, which destroyed the standing crops and caused damages to the tune of Rs. 800/-. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs. However, the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs had title to the suit land and they 2 possess the same. According to the defendants, they were continuously using the cart road for more than forty years and exercising easementary right over the same by easement of prescription as well as by easement of necessity. The trial Court, after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs after holding that the plaintiffs had proved that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land and the land was cultivated by the plaintiff no.2 on behalf of the plaintiff no.1. The Court came to a conclusion that the defendants failed to prove that they were using the suit land for more than forty years. The Court held that the defendants had further failed to prove that they acquired a right of user over the way by easement of necessity as well as easement by prescription. While recording the aforesaid findings, both the Courts considered the oral and the documentary evidence produced by the parties on record. The Courts considered the fact that 7/12 extract did not show the existence of the right of way. The Courts further considered that the sale deeds exhs. 156 and 160 also did not speak about any existence of a way through the field of the plaintiffs. Both the Courts concurrently held that the defendants had utterly failed in proving that 3 they acquired the easementary right to use the land, either by prescription or by necessity. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Submission made on behalf of the appellants that the Courts had not appreciated the evidence properly, even if considered to be true, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP