Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2012 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.76 of 2009.

2.“Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration. According to the plaintiff, she is owner in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal and 1 marla bearing Khasra Nos. 1658/121 and 1650/121 situated in Tikka Daruhi, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. This land was purchased by her in the year 1993. Thereafter, she constructed a house on it. The government land is abutting this land bearing Khasra No. 1580/1245 and 1220. The plaintiff and her family members are using this path since long as a matter of right by easement of necessity. According to them, they have been using this path for the last more than 22 years without any objection and interruption from anyone. The said path is the only approach to the house of the plaintiff. There is no alternative path available to her. This path is not recorded in the revenue record. Respondent- defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “defendant No.2” for convenience sake) is bent upon to obstruct the use of the path by plaintiff and her family members. The plaintiff has made several requests to the Government to record the said part of land as path to her house, but nothing has been done so far. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the path measuring 35’x5’ in the attached site plan in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1580/1245 and 1220 of Tikka Daruhi, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur is being used by the plaintiff, her family members and others since long as a matter or right by easement of necessity for more than 22 years without any objection and interruption. The same is required to be recorded in the revenue record. Defendant No.2 has no right to cause any obstruction from using this path.

3. The suit was contested by respondent- defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.1’ for convenience sake). According to defendant No.1, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1993. Thereafter she had constructed the house. She has no easementary right over the Government land. Previously, the nature of the land purchased by the plaintiff was ‘Barani-ek-fasli’, Kharetar and Banjar Kadim’. Defendant No.2 has also contested the suit. According to him, the plaintiff has no easmentary right through Khasra No. 1220 and 1243 etc. as this land is in cultivating possession of defendant No.2. According to him, there is a path to the house of the plaintiff through Khasra Nos. 1654/1221 and 1651/1221 etc.

4. Learned trial court framed the issues. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 16.12.2008. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. He dismissed the same on 1.9.20 12. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.

5.Mr. Rahul Mahajan has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.

6. I have heard Mr. Rahul Mahajan and have gone through the judgments carefully.

7. PW- 1 Partap Chand has testified that he had started construction work in the year 1995-96 and the construction material was carried through the disputed land. The passage was existing prior to the purchasing of land. Defendant started threatening to obstruct the passage after the construction of the house. Khasra Nos. 1220 and 1245 are owned by the State and defendant No.2 is not in possession. The passage was allotted to Ram Dass and R.C. Sharma by the State. In his cross- examination, he has denied that an alternative passage is available.

8.PW-2 Ramesh Chand has deposed that plaintiff is using the passage since the time of construction. The other person