To claim easementary rights by prescription, continuous and peaceful use of the disputed land for the statutory period of 20 years must be established.

Prakash Krishna, J.—This is a defendant’s appeal. It arises out of suit filed by the respondent for possession over a piece of land ad measuring 2 feet wide lane shown in the plaint map and ejectment of the defendants and demolition of wall raised by them.

2. The suit was instituted on the allegation that the plaintiff purchased a house detailed in the plaint map by letters A.B.E.F.G.C.D. situated in Mohalla Baqar Ganj (Banda). The said house originally belonged to Smt. Rajjo widow of Khyali and Bhauna son of Khyali. These two persons sold a house by means of sale deed dated 10th November, 1965, to one Booti Lal, who sold it to the plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 3rd April, 1968. The suit was filed with the allegations that the disputed piece of land belongs to the plaintiff. Easementary right over a said piece of land was also claimed by way of passage to take water from a well and also for the passage of sweepers.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellants by denying the title of the plaintiff over the land in question. The easementary right was also denied.

4. The trial court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit on the finding that the defendants are the owners of the disputed piece of land. The said judgment has been reversed by the court below in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1977.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The above appeal was admitted on 3rd August, 1977, but no substantial question of law as involved in the appeal was framed. During course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the appeal only on the following substantial question of law.

“Whether without any evidence of easementary rights the suit could be decreed.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the other findings recorded by the court below. On the question of easement the court below in paragraph 15 of its judgment has concluded that the plaintiff had not adduced any reliable evidence to prove her ownership of the lane which was in existence on the south, but the existence of this lane is clearly mentioned in the sale deeds, referred in the earlier part of the judgment. Then it is held that the plaintiff and her predecessors have been using this land for the passage of sweepers and for the inmates of the house. Section 15 of the Easement Act prescribes the manner in which the easementary rights by prescription can be acquired. One of the necessary ingredients for acquisition of rights by prescription is that it should have been enjoyed without interruption, peaceably for twenty years, as of right. The appellate court without considering the ingredients which are required to be proved by the plaintiff to claim easementary right by way of prescription has decreed the suit merely on the basis of long user of the land in question by the plaintiff and her predecessor-in-interest. This is hardly sufficient to acquire easementary right by way of prescription. There is no finding by the appellate court that the plaintiff used the land in question peaceably without any interruption and for twenty years. The plaintiff came up with the case that the lane in question belongs to her. She was not able to establish her ownership over the disputed land. A person cannot acquire easementary right over a property belonging to him. Two tenements belonging to two different persons is the essential requirement to claim easementary right. Easement is defined under Section 4 of the Act. An easement is a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of certain other land not his own. Right of passage over another’s land cannot be acquired by way of prescription unless that right is shown to have been exercised as of right for a statutory period of 20 years. The appellate court without discussing