RSA 32/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6.8.08 passed by the lear ned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 4/08 thereby dismissing the appeal a nd affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 21/07. The plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No. 21.07 cla iming the following relief : (i) A decree declaring the right of entry to the land and house of the plaintif f through the passage as described in the schedule of the plaint. (ii) A decree declaring the act of closing the passage of entry to the land of t he plaintiff done by the defendant is illegal and the defendant has no right to encroach /close the said passage of entry to the land of the plaintiff, (iii) A decree for evicting the defendant from the passage of entry shown in the schedule by removing all obstructions and cutting the trees standing thereon, (iv) by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from giving any obstruction to the passage of entry to the land of the plaintiff. (v) Cost of the suits. (vi) Any other reliefs for which the plaintiff is legally entitled to and for wh ich act of kindness etc. etc. The defendant respondent upon receipt of the sommon appeared in the suit and sub mitted the written statement denying the allegation leveled in the plaint. The d efendant also denied any existing path over the suit land. On the basis of the s uit land the learned trial court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is misconceived and vexatious against the defendant ? 2. Whether there existed any road or passage at the time of purchase of land by the plaintiff from the defendant as claimed by the plaintiff ? 3. Whether the defendant gave any passage to the plaintiff at the time of sale o f the land to the plaintiff ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief’s as prayed for ? 5. To what relief/relief’s, the parties are entitled ? Additional issue 1. Whether the plaintiff has acquired easement of necessity over the suit passag e ? Both the parties adduced their evidence both oral and documentary before the lea rned trial court. Upon consideration of the statement of the witnesses and the documentary evidence so produced by the parties, the learned trial court dismiss ed the suit on the ground that there is no existing path over the suit land whic h is being used by the plaintiff as its egress and ingress vide judgment and or der dated 17.12.07 which was carried into a Title Appeal No. 4/08 in the court o f learned Civil Judge, Jorhat. The learned appellate court upon re-assessing the evidence and the materials available on record held that there was no alternati ve path leading to the main road from the land purchased by the plaintiff appell ant and the plaintiff appellant failed to prove the right of easement over the s uit land and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the said judgmen t and decree, the present second appeal has been preferred on the following subs tantial question of law : 1. Whether the plaintiff has easementery right over the path of the Defendant l eading to the suit land, which was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant , vide Registered Sale Deed No. 859 dated 19/03/1986 ? 2. Whether the accusation of easement by prescription under Section 25 of the Li mitation Act, 1963 has been denied to the plaintiff by the learned Courts below ? I have heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Bane rjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The Indian Easement Act is not applicable in the State of Assam but the judicial determination has held that the principles enshrined therein are very much appl icable. Section 15 of the Easement Act provides that where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where support from one person’s land or things affixed thereto, has been peaceably received by anot her person’s land subjected to artificial pressure is or by things affixed there to, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years and where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any perso n claiming title thereto, as an easement and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right, to such access and use of light or air, support , or other easement, shall be absolute. In the instant case, from the concurren t findings of both the courts below it is found that the plaintiff failed to pr ove that he was in peaceful enjoyment without any interruption of such right for twenty years. In fact, the plaintiff purchased the suit land vide Exbt. I on 19 .3.86. It is the concurrent findings of the court below that boundary of the sui t land do not disclose that there is any path or way in the land in question pur chased by the plaintiff appellant. That apart, the suit land was purchased on 1 9.2.86 and the plaintiff having been allegedly stopped on 28.7.96 by the respon dent, the required period of years is also falls lesser in this case. Learned a ppellant court, upon re-assessment of the evidence and the materials available on record, held that there is no path through the land of the respondent and th e plaintiff has got another alternative road to the main road. The plaint also d oes not disclose that the plaintiff has any other alternative road connecting t he public road. In view of the above, the first substantial question of law fram ed by the learned counsel for the appellant is answered in negative. So far as t he second substantial question of law is concerned, I do not find that it is a p ure question of law, rather it is a question of facts and the plaintiff failed t o adduce any evidence and the materials to show and establish that there is no other alternative path except the suit land to reach the main road from her pur chased land and accordingly the second substantial question of law is also answe red in the negative. In the result, finding no merit in this second appeal the same stands dismissed.