JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This second appeal has been brought by Defendants 1 and 2 against the confirming judgment of the Courts below arising out of a suit brought by four Plaintiffs for a declaration that the Defendants have no right of way over the ridges of the plots belonging to the Plaintiffs. The plot have been mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The Plaintiffs also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the ridges. The cause of action of the suit is the order passed against the Plaintiffs u/s 147 Code of Criminal Procedure which is dated 2-9-1953. The Defendants have taken up several pleas. They have pleaded prescriptive rights u/s 26 of the Limitation Act. They had taken up the plea of lost grant and they had also taken up the plea of customary right of villagers to make use of the ridges or the other persons owning different plots. 2. The lower appellate Court, while confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, has decreed the Plaintiffs' suit and negatived the defence contention finding that the Defendants had not been able to prove the requisite period necessary for maturing their right of way. It has been found also that the Defendants have other ways for approaching their plots situate in that area which they use. The Plaintiffs' plots which are the subject matter of the present suit have been found to have been fenced also. These are sufficient for the purpose of negativing the defence plea and, giving a decree to the Plaintiffs. But there are certain observations made by the learned District Judge which have got to be clarified. He observes that the custom pleaded by the defence has been admitted by the Plaintiffs' witnesses. He has also found: From the evidence on record one thing appears to be clear and that it is customary in that village for people owning lands in the interior and far away from the public rasta to reach their lands by passing over the ridges of lands belonging to others. Indeed this customary right as pleaded by the villagers does not extend to the Bari lands and the Courts below have found the disputed lands to be Bari lands. I asked Mr. Pal to place the entire evidence of the P.Ws. Indeed this customary right as pleaded by the villagers does not extend to the Bari lands and the Courts below have found the disputed lands to be Bari lands. I asked Mr. Pal to place the entire evidence of the P.Ws. in order to verify whether the learned District Judge was right in observing that the custom pleaded by the Defendants has been admitted by the Plaintiffs witnesses The Plaintiffs' witnesses simply say that different villagers having their fields in a vast area can pass through the ridges of the lands of others while they go from the pubic pathway to their respective lands. That alone is completely insufficient to prove customary right. They do not assert that in fact the villagers use it as of right and from time immemorial. It is always the practical experience of all that on account of relationship and friendship prevailing amongst the inhabitants of the same village, if a particular villager has some lands far away from public pathway, he does pass through the lands of others; but this is only as a matter of grace or permission and in order to keep up good feelings the owners do not particularly object. But the owners have the right to object and they do object when occasion arise. The villagers having lands at a distance from the public pathway using some ridges at some time and other ridges at other times in order to reach their own lands do it as a matter of grace and implied permission of others Moreover the alleged customary rights are too vague and uncertain customary rights pleaded have not been established. With these observations, I must dismiss the appeal with costs and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the Lower appellate Court. Final Result : Dismissed