JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.:---Do village customs recorded in wajib-ul-arz maintained under section 165 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) require independent proof in a dispute between the parties, is the substantial question of law raised in this second appeal? 2. Appellants---Nanda Sathawane and his son Laxman---had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-Smt. Sulka widow of Sitaram (died during the pendency of this appeal) and her son Shankar restraining them from creating obstruction in the user of the portion along with the boundaries of Khasra Nos. 120/1, 120/2 and 121/1 of village Berdipar, District Bhandara, belonging to the respondents, for taking bullock carts, ploughs etc. in Khasra No. 119/1 belonging to the appellants. The right was claimed on the basis of (i) easement of necessity, (ii) lost grant and (iii) immemorial user and custom. The trial Court granted the relief prayed for, but the Appellate Court dismissed the suit in toto. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. 3. Khasra Nos. 119/1, 199/2, 120/1, 120/2, 121/1, 121/2 and 124/1---all adjoining lands---were owned previously by one Prafulla Buti who sold 2.50 acres out of Khasra No. 119/1 and 1.50 acres out of Khasra No. 124/1 to the plaintiffs and 5 acres out of Khasra No. 119/2 to the defendants on 5th March, 1965. On 18th March, 1970, Buti sold Khasra Nos. 120/1, 120/2 and 121/1 to the defendants. On 12th February, 1971, the defendants obstructed the passage of the plaintiff's bullock carts through the fields of the defendants and this had led to the filing of the suit. The defendants denied the easement, grant as well as the custom. According to them, the plaintiffs had alternative way to reach Khasra No. 119/1 through their Khasra Nos. 123 and 126. 4. After considering the oral evidence led by the parties, the sale deed and the entries in wajib-ul-arz, the trial Court recorded findings that the way through field Khasra Nos. 123 and 126 was uneven and inconvenient. Buti must have granted the disputed right of passage by transfer though it is not specifically mentioned in the sale deed and the easement of necessity as well as custom was established. 123 and 126 was uneven and inconvenient. Buti must have granted the disputed right of passage by transfer though it is not specifically mentioned in the sale deed and the easement of necessity as well as custom was established. The Appellate Court held that easement of necessity was not established since there was alternate way though inconvenient, the grant was not established inter alia because the sale deed did not refer to it and there was no sufficient evidence in support of the immemorial user. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. 5. I have heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent. Now, the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court are binding in second appeal and there can be no interference in second appeal unless there exists a substantial question of law as contemplated under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. 6. In that context my attention was invited to the entries in the village wajib-ul-arz (Exhibit 65) in which are recorded the village customs and the customary rights. The customary rights of way are of two categories: (A) Relating to all season regular cartways passing through Khasra Nos. 19, 54, 84, 129, 141, 146, 185, 215, 229, 269, 271 and 272. (B) Relating to the use of adjoining dhura for going and carrying cattle, crops etc. when crops are standing; and to break open the dhura for carrying crops through carts when crops are not standing and to repair the dhura after the work is completed. These entries are as old as 1915-16 and were first entered in the wajib-ul-arz maintained under the provisions of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917. They were made final under section 225 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 and also under section 165 of the Code. 7. Submission of Shri Chandurkar is that at least the relief confined to the customary rights recorded in Exhibit 65 could have been granted to the plaintiffs since they do not require any independent proof. It seems to me that the contention is well founded. It is true that the plaintiffs had claimed all season right of way to carry cart and ploughs through the fields of the defendants and that right is not mentioned in Exhibit 65. It seems to me that the contention is well founded. It is true that the plaintiffs had claimed all season right of way to carry cart and ploughs through the fields of the defendants and that right is not mentioned in Exhibit 65. But every villager has a customary right to use dhura in a manner specified in Exhibit 65. Entries in the waji-ul-arz are made "final and conclusive" after public enquiry contemplated under section 165 of the Code and they do not require independent proof. Demand of separate proof of these entries would also defeat the very object of maintaining the wajib-ul-arz. The defendants, therefore, cannot obstruct the use of dhura in a manner specified in the latter part of Exhibit 65 and injunction restricted to that right can be granted to the plaintiffs. Interference with other findings of the first Appellate Court is not possible. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sole surviving defendant/respondent is restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs' right to use dhura in a manner specified in Exhibit 65. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. -----