1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that the 'A' schedule property is a common passage of the plaintiff, the defendants and other owners of the other properties situated immediately north of the 'A' schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's common possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the offending construction shown as 'B' schedule. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court rejected the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Thus, the present second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.

2. The second appeal was admitted by this Court by raising the following substantial question of law:-

Whether the courts below are right in holding that Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act is not attracted in this case, overlooking that admittedly the entire plaint schedule properties originally belonged to a common owner, that parties have purchased portions from the common owner and that the plaint 'A' schedule property is the only access to all the shar