1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapur.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- against the defendants, inter alia, with the averments that at village Pitha Ka Khera the plaintiffs have land comprising in Araji Nos. 467 and 468; for ingress and egress a old way is situated from the land of defendants comprising in Araji Nos. 478, 480 and 481, which way goes on to join the Government road; the way has been indicated in the revenue record by doted lines; the plaintiffs have been using this way for a long time and the plaintiffs have no alternative way for going to their fields; the defendants have obstructed the way; on account of their such obstruction the plaintiffs have suffered loss of Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, mandatory injunction was sought seeking the defendants to remove the obstruction and seeking a decree against the defendants not to obstruct the way.

3. A written statement was filed and it was submitted that the plaintiffs were not using the way from Araji Nos. 478 and 480 and 481 and the way to their fields was from the Abadi land of village Pitha Ka Khera, which is in existence for years which is being used by them; the disputed way has not been used by the plaintiffs; the suit has wrongly been filed; it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The trial court framed eight issues; on behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited; on behalf of the defendants three witnesses were examined and nine documents were exhibited.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that earlier the way from the defendants' field was existing as indicated in the revenue record by doted lines, however, for over 45 years after construction of metal road from Pitha Ka Khera to Raipur the said way has been closed and all the khatedars were using the said way and decided the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal, which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhilwara, who after hearing the parties, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that both the courts fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the alternative way sought to be suggested by the defendant was reason enough for the defendants to stop the plaintiffs from using the way from their fields, which was indicated in the revenue record by doted lines; it was submitted that admittedly the alternative way suggested is not only longer but the same is not convenient and, therefore, it could not even be called an alternative way therefore the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.

8. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Mangu Ram v. Kishan : S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 54/1984 decided on 30.05.2005.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the courts have concurrently found that the plaintiffs have an alternative way and the alleged way has not been used for over 40 years and, therefore, the appellants have no cause and, consequently, the appeal has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of both the courts below as well as of the record.

11. The entire emphasis of learned counsel for the appellants has been that the way from the defendants'