JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - The plaintiff respondent and defendants 1 and 2 are real brothers. Apart from the defendants 1 and 2, there are three other brothers. All of these brothers were six in number. These six brothers entered into a family agreement dated 4-5-1957 in accordance with which they entered in their possession of the properties allotted. The plaintiff had a grievance against defendants 1 and 2 for not being permitted to use the passage agreed upon and also with regard to a wall which hindered air and light. These rights were disputed by the defendants. 2. Some other pleas were taken to defend the suit, but in this appeal it is not necessary to mention the same, On the pleadings, the trial court framed issues 1 and 2. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. That trial court decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against which the appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed. The lower appellate court while maintaining the decree of the trial court passed the following order : vihykFkhZ dh vihy lR;e [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA fo}ku eqfUlQ csap ds vkns'k fnukad 25&4&84 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA 3. Before me in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that only in cases of absolute necessity easement under Section 13(a), (b) and (c) could arise, but as in the instant case there was another passage for passing to the road about which the claim had been made by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The two courts have found concurrently that there were latrines on both sides of the alternative passage and, as such, the plaintiff's right for getting the relief with regard to ABCDMNOP could not be denied. The view taken after appraisal of evidence was that the plaintiff had been given the right under the family settlement. The finding of the two courts below is one of fact. 4. Re-appreciation of evidence in second appeal is not permissible. In Govindbhatta v. Maruwalabhatta, AIR 1927 Mad 903, the court held whether an easement of the claim is an easement of necessity or not is a question of fact from the circumstances of each case. 5. The finding of the two courts below is one of fact. 4. Re-appreciation of evidence in second appeal is not permissible. In Govindbhatta v. Maruwalabhatta, AIR 1927 Mad 903, the court held whether an easement of the claim is an easement of necessity or not is a question of fact from the circumstances of each case. 5. In the instant case, the two courts on appraisal of evidence had found that the right had been given to the plaintiff to use the passage for which injunction had been sought. Emphasis of the learned counsel of the appellant for the alternative route is to be rejected as the same was almost impassable. Environment and peculiarities of each case have to be weighed on its merits in every case. The decision on issue no. 2 is also a question of fact and I am not satisfied that the courts below have committed any error which could attract Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The appeal is dismissed summarily.