The central legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of the plaintiffs' right of way to access their agricultural fields, based on their historical use of the path.

ORDER :

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in this second Appeal is made by the State authorities to the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. The present respondents - original plaintiffs had approached the trial Court Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 226 of 1986 and prayed for declaration and injunction, qua their right of way to go their agricultural fields. The said suit was allowed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.1996. The same is confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Junagadh vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1999. It is this judgment and decree, which is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Mr. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the plaintiffs had no right of way and further that they had alternative way. It is further submitted that they had to have challenged the notification of the Government Exh. 95, which they had not and therefore no relief could have been granted to the plaintiffs. It is submitted that substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court. It is submitted that this Second Appeal be entertained.

3. Having heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under.

3.1. The dispute is only qua the right of way to go the agricultural fields. The very fact that the question is of going to the fields through the path, which is claimed to be the forest land by the State, the agricultural fields, which is not the subject- matter of this appeal, are also in the forest.

3.2. The plaintiffs who are very poor persons and who are earning their livelihood by doing agricultural activities, were restrained by the State authorities, on the ground of right of way. This was questioned by the citizen and both the Courts below have, on the basis of the material on record, arrived at the conclusion that, they did have the right of way, to go their fields and further that the said path/way was being used by them since time immemorial. Specific issues are framed by the trial Court more particularly issue Nos. 1 and 2 in that regard and are answered in favour of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court below, which is the final court, so far the findings of facts are concerned, has also confirmed the said findings.

4. In view of above, this Court finds that, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in this case worth being gone into by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity, there is no non-reading or misreading of evidence on record. This Second Appeal therefore needs to be rejected.

5. For the reasons recorded above, this Second Appeal is dismissed.