The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of S. 13 (e) of the Easements Act, emphasizing the absolute necessity of the pathway for the plaintiff's agricultural purposes.

( 1 ) - This second appeal between two cousins residing in a remote village called Deginal in Indi taluk, Bijapur District and owning adjacent agricultural lands bearing Block Nos. 64/1 and 69/1 of the same village inherited by them from their grand father Rama Rao by way of partition more than 50 to 60 years ago amply demonstrates how difficult it is to translate into reality the dream of the Father of the Nation the concept of 'rama Rajya' in India, i. e. , Bharat, even 43 years after he attained martyrdom inasmuch as these two cousins already in their sixties have not been able to arrive at an amicable settlement to find a way out to reach the adjacent land of one of them through a small pathway running at the northern end of the other's land in spite of protracted litigation and well intentioned intervention of their learned counsel at the instance of this Court on more than one occasion. Indeed, one of the parties to this appeal had even filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 2063/85 before the Supreme Court against an order of this Court dated 9-11-84 on an interlocutory application and the Supreme Court dismissed the said petition on 22-2-85 with an observation that this Court shall dispose of this second appeal at an early date.

( 2 ) THIS is a plaintiffs Second Appeal arising of O. S. 155/78 filed by him in the Court of the Munsiff, Indi against the respondent-defendant, who is none other than his own cousin, for a declaration that he has a right of way through the northern end of the land of the defendant bearing Block No. 64/1 of Deginal village in order to reach his land bearing Block No. 69/1 of the same village and situate immediately to the east of Block No. 64/1 along with cart, bullock etc. , along the path indicated by letters ABC and thereafter along the footpath over the bund indicated by letters DEFG in the suit sketch and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing him from making use of the said cart track and the footh path and also for a mandatory injunction directing him to restore the portion denoted by letters DE on the bund to its original condition. Within about a month after the said suit was filed, defendant's brother Rajaba Khando Jadhav (for short 'rajaba') filed a suit against the plaintiff, plaintiffs brother Waman Rao and his own brother Shama Rao in O. S. 163/ 78 in the same Court for a decree of perpetual injunction against the plaintiff. Both the suits were consolidated together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 28-8-82 by which the trial Court dismissed O. S. No. 163/ 78 and decreed the plaintiffs suit O. S. 155/78 as prayed for. But, defendant promptly filed R. A. 71/82 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bijapur who allowed that appeal by judgment dated 28-9-83, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, plaintiff has filed this second appeal which is admitted on 23-11-83 for consideration of the following substantial question of law :"whether the first appellate Court has correctly interpreted and applied Ss. 13 and 15 of the Easements Act to the facts of the case?".

( 3 ) APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF had the benefit of ad-interim order of injunction against the respondent in the trial Court during the pendency of the suit and that order enured to his benefit during the pendency of defendant's appeal in the lower Appellate Court also throughout the pendency of that appeal. After admitting this appeal, this Court ordered maintenance of status quo by both parties. Respondent defendant filed I. A. II to vacate the status quo order. By order dated 9-11-84, I. A. II was allowed and the ad interim status quo order of injunction granted earlier was vacated. It is that order that was challenged by the appellant-plaintiff by filing the above referred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court which was dismissed with a direction to this Court to dispose of this appeal as early as possible.

( 4 ) FACT