1. An easement of necessity can be acquired if the passage is necessary for the enjoyment of the property and there is no other means of access to the property. 2. An easement by implication of grant can be acquired if the conveyance of the property includes the passage, the grantee has been using the passage continuously, and the grantor has not objected to the grantee's use of the passage.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge 9th Court Alipore in Title Appeal No. 861 of 1974 affirming those passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 345 of 1971.

( 2 ) THE defendants are appellants in the instant appeal.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid Title Suit No. 345 of 1971 was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents inter alia for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of way or passage-over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from causing any obstruction by raising walls or constructions and also for mandatory injunction directing the said defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to demolish 2 1/2 ft. to 3 ft. high construction on the northern mouth of the disputed passage and to remove the rubbish, garbage and brickbats from the passage.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiffs respondents was inter alia that the premises Nos. 13,14 and 15 Girish Chandra Basu Road within Police Station Entally in Calcutta originally belonged to Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy and on 18th Jan. , 1956, a trust in respect of those properties was created under the name of Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy Public Charitable Trust. The plaintiffs contended that there is a passage lying to the east of these three premises. From April 1, 1950, the plaintiffs occupied premises No. 14, Girish Chandra Bose Road as tenants and thereafter by a sale deed executed in Nov. , 1959 the plaintiffs had purchased the right, title and interest in the said premises No. 14. Girish Chandra Bose Road from Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy Public Charitable Trust. Long thereafter in the year 1968, the defenants Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the premises No. 15, Girish Chandra Bose Road lying to the contiguous north of premises No. 14 belonging in the plaintiffs. The premises No. 13 which is to the contiguous south of the premises of the plaintiffs was being possessed by the Maternity Centre of the Corporation of Calcutta. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had been using the disputed passage to the east of the said three premises since 1950 as of right and necessity without any opposition from anybody. The plaintiffs have also contended that there is one door on the north eastern of premises No. 14 abutting to the disputed passage leading to Haralal Das Street on the north. There is also one dour of the privy of premises No. 14 abutting on the disputed passage. The plaintiffs contended that the said privy and the eastern portion of premises No. 14 could not be used without the passage in dispute and the plaintiffs had all along been using this passage for egress from and ingress to Haralal Das Street and also for the purpose of the sweeper for the privy on the back portion of the said premises. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 after their purchase of premises No. 15 Girish Chandra Bose Road submitted a plan to the Corporation of Calcutta proposing some construction on the portion of the disputed passage to the east of the said premises No. 15. The said plan was not sanctioned. But the defendants surreptitiously raised a brick-built construction on the mouth of the passage thereby obstructing the user of the passage and the defendants also heaped rubbish, garbage etc. on the disputed passage. The plaintiffs contended that they had acquired easement right by prescription, grant and user. As the defendants were disturbing the said right of the plaintiffs, the aforesaid suit had been instituted.

( 5 ) THE said Title Suit was contested by the defendants appellants by filing written statement and it was contended in the said written statement that there was never any passage over the disputed land and the plaintiffs never used the disputed land as passage. The defendants urged that they had exclusive right over the disputed portion of land and as such the suit should be dismissed.

( 6 ) THE learned Munsif upon consideration of the evidences a