JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Even though, this appeal has been formally admitted vide order passed earlier in the day, however, after hearing the parties, it was noticed that the learned first appellate Court has not decided the appeal in accordance with law.

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ''plaintiff'' and ''defendant''.

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain him from blocking the path passes through Khasra No. 8976 on the basis of easement of necessity. It is claimed that the plaintiff was owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 605 and 606 and that there is a passage ''share-aam'' since the inception of the Village being used by the residents of the Village from time immemorial. The passage is situated towards East of Khasra Nos. 605 and 606 and there is no other passage. The revenue authorities did not mention the passage in ''aks-shajra and missal-haqiyat-istemal'' and, therefore, taking undue advantage of these wrong entries, the defendant had threatened to block the path and hence the suit wherein a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from blocking the passa