The present appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff

assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2011

passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi in

R.A. No.18/2011, confirming the judgment and decree

dated 03.11.2009 in O.S.No.113/2007 on the file of Civil

Judge (Jr.Dn.), Basavana Bagewadi.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.

The plaintiff laid claim over the suit schedule

property to contend that the plaintiff has got right to use

- 3 -

the cart-way to reach his land RS No.119 by using 'CE'

cart-way for cultivation of his land, as of right more than

30 years by prescription and for consequential relief of

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

using the suit way by the plaintiff in any manner. The

plaintiff contended that since from the date of purchase of

the suit property i.e., in the year 1974, the plaintiff is

using the suit way for the purpose of carrying bullock cart

and agricultural implements to his land and contended

that the suit way is in existence since from the time

immemorial and without anybody's obstruction.

4.

The defendants resisted the suit and disputed

regarding the existence of the suit 'CE' road as contended

by the plaintiff, disputed the hand sketch annexed to the

plaint seriously and also disputed that the plaintiff has

been enjoying the suit pathway 'CE' to carry bullock cart

and agricultural implements. It is not disputed that the

plaintiff is the owner in possession of RS No.119

measuring 13 acres 34 guntas and the defendants are the

- 4 -

owners in possession of RS Nos.129/1A and 129/1B. The

defendants had denied that the plaintiff has any manner of

right to use any portion of their properties as way and

sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.

Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court

framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of

suit 'CE' road, which has described in the hand

sketch annexed to the plaint?

Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the

suit way has been sued by himself and his

forefathers since from 30 years, openly and

peacefully as of right within the knowledge of the

defendants?

3.

Whether the plaintiff proves that, he has

acquired right of easement of prescription over

the CE road?

4.

Whether the defendants prove the existence

of alternative road, as contended in para-6 of the

written statement?

5.

Whether the plaintiff proves cause of action?

- 5 -

6.

What order or decree?

6.

The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim,

examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as P.W.2

and P.W.3 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.5.

On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as

D.W.1 and got marked documents at Exs.D.1 to D.3.

7.

On appreciation of the evidence and material on

record, the Trial Court held that:

(i)

The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the

suit of 'CE' road as described in the hand sketch

annexed to the plaint.

(ii)

The plaintiff was unable to prove that the suit

way has been used by himself and his forefathers

since 30 years openly and peacefully as of right

within the knowledge of the defendants.

(iii) The plaintiff failed to prove that he has acquired

right of easement of prescription over the 'CE' road

and accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

- 6 -

8.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree

of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before

the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court

concurred with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court,

held that the plaintiff has failed to prove existence of cart

way as mentioned in 'CE' of the hand sketch annexed to

the plaint and the plaintiff having unable to prove that he

was using the suit way since 30 years and he has acquired

the right of easement of prescription, accordingly, the first

Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

9.

Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is before this

Court.

10. This Court while admitt