JUDGMENT :

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Civil Appeal No.07/2013 whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar, District Pali in Original Civil Suit No.31/2007 has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of easement of way and permanent injunction has been affirmed.

2. The plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration of easement of way and permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the plaint, a site map was annexed which was exhibited as Ex.1. It was averred by the plaintiffs that the way marked as v to l and further l to N in the map, though not recorded as public way in the revenue record, was used by the plaintiffs and the defendants as a way, since years. It was averred that the property in question was obtained by the defendants in some execution proceedings initiated against ancestors of the plaintiffs and at that point of time too, the way v to l and l to N existed on the site and as per the mutual consent, it is being used by all the parties since centuries. It was therefore, prayed that it may be declared that the plaintiffs have a right of easement qua the said way and the defendants, who were trying to obstruct the said way, be restrained from the same.

3. The case of the defendants was that there was an alternative way available to the plaintiffs to have access to their agriculture fields and therefore, they cannot claim right of easement qua the way in question.

It is relevant to note that the defendants did not deny the factum of existence of the way v to l and l to N which ran across their fields.

4. Both the Courts below reached to a specific finding that the way in question existed on the site since years and the parties had been using the same therefore, the plaintiffs definitely possessed the right of easement qua the said way. It is also the specific finding of both the Courts below that there is no alternative way connecting the field of the plaintiffs to the recorded way marked as d [k in the site map. In view of above findings, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiffs had right of easement qua the way in question and further, the defendants were restrained from raising any obstruction in the user of the said way.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings as recorded by both the Courts are totally contrary to the material available on record and hence deserve to be set aside. He submitted that the site map Ex.1 as placed on record by the plaintiffs was neither the actual map of the site nor the same was prepared by any revenue authority and hence the same could not have been relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that it was proved on record that there was an alternative way available to the plaintiffs which fact has been cursorily ignored by the Court below.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

7. A bare perusal of the site map Ex.1 as placed on record by the plaintiffs and the revenue map Ex.2, the official map of the site, makes it clear that the same are identical so far as the position of khasras and the recorded way is concerned. The recorded way d [k as well as l n has been shown in both the maps at the same place. Even the way v to l has also been shown at the same place therefore, the ground as raised by learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.1 could not have been relied upon, does not hold water.

So far as the existence of way in question and user of the same by the plaintiffs since years is concerned, the same was also proved on record. The site report was prepared in presence of concerned Tehsildar and Patwari wherein the way in question was reported to be existing and no alternate way was reported to be ava