This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the decree of the appellate Judge dismissing their suit for declaration of their easement right and for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from obstructing them in passing over a path way situate to the adjacent East of their home-stead which plaintiff No. 2 purchased from the defendant No. 1, Anath Bandhu Paul on 2.5.1965 AD by dint of a registered kabala. 2. The facts found are that the plaintiffs filed the suit after obtaining permission of the Court according to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and they filed the suit for declaration of their right of easement, namely right of passing over a strip of land described in the plaint and for an injunction for removal of certain obstruction placed by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 on that path way. Plaintiffs case was that from time immemorial the passage was being used as path way by themselves and the people of the locality for egress and ingress without interruption and openly as of right, for over 50 years. They also claimed this path way as an easement of necessity as there is no other way to go out of their houses. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants 1, 2 and 3 illegally blocked the path way by constructing a hut and also putting fencing at two portions portrayed in a hand sketch map appended under fourth schedule of the plaint. 3. The path way in dispute is situate to the adjacent West of the bank of a tank belonging to the Government and it runs from Bidya Mandir Road towards North and joined with another public road to the North of the tank and that this path way is situate between the West bank of the aforesaid tank and the home-stead of the plaintiffs. 4. The defendants filed separate written statements denying the alle­gations in the plaint. The substance of the defence is that there was no path way as claimed by the plaintiffs. It was stated that the land stated to be path way was actually a grave-yard. 5. Upon the pleadings the learned Munsiff framed 5 issues for deter­mination of the suit. The issues are : (1) Has there any public path way over the suit land ? It was stated that the land stated to be path way was actually a grave-yard. 5. Upon the pleadings the learned Munsiff framed 5 issues for deter­mination of the suit. The issues are : (1) Has there any public path way over the suit land ? And whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of easement right over the suit property ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for ? (3) To what relief or reliefs are the parties entitled to ? (4) Have the plaintiffs paid proper court fee ? (5) Is the suit land a Muslim grave yard ? 5. During trial issue No. 4 was not pressed and hence learned Munsiff decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 5 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs as according to learned Munsiff it was admitted that the suit land was not situate within grave yard. But the remaining issues were decided against the plaintiffs, and learned Munsiff dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that there was no public or private path way as was alleged by the plaintiffs. 6. The first appellate Court also concurred with him and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs on the ground that suit was misconceived as on facts question of easement cannot arise and that the plaintiffs also failed to prove the existence of path way. 7. It is contended by Mr. AM Lodh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the report of the Survey Com­missioner indicated that there was a path way between the home-stead of the plaintiffs and the western bank of the tank and there was no cogent ground to ignore the report of Survey Commissioner which has not only been supported by the evidence of plaintiffs but also by Ext. B 1 the kabala whereby defendant No. l, Anath Bandhu Paul purchased his home-stead. It has, therefore been argued that the finding of the appellate Court in this regard is vague and confusive. A scrutiny of these documentary evidence is therefore necessary. 8. The report of the Survey Commissioner which has been marked as Ext. C 1 shows that the land described in schedules of the plaint was a public passage. The inspection report of the learned Munsiff which has been marked as Ext. A scrutiny of these documentary evidence is therefore necessary. 8. The report of the Survey Commissioner which has been marked as Ext. C 1 shows that the land described in schedules of the plaint was a public passage. The inspection report of the learned Munsiff which has been marked as Ext. C 4 shows that during his spot inspection it seemed to him that the western bank like eastern bank and northern bank was used as path way by the people. Apart from these two reports which very much indicate the existence of a path-way the kabala marked as Ext. Al by dint of which plaintiff No. 2 Matilal Sana purchased this land sold from defendant No. 1, Anath Bandhu Paul shows that the lands sold by this kabala was bounded on the East by rasta and to the East of that rasta is the bank of tank. Similarly, Ext. Bl kabala whereby defendant No. 1 Anath Bandhu Paul purchased his home-stead from Smti Sudeja Khatoon and others shows that his purchased land was also bounded on the East by road on the bank of the tank of Government. 9. While discussion about these two documents, namely Ext. Al and Ext. B 1, learned first appellate Court held that these two documents cannot be of any help to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs could not properly describe the suit land. Learned first appellate Court held that the plaintiffs ought to have given dag number or touji number etc. Dag number is actually available from the report of Survey Commissioner. Ext A3 map also indicates the dag number of the plot, the boundary of which has been given in the schedule of the plaint. 10. In the present case admittedly boundary has been given of the path way in question. So, the question of vagueness does not arise. The lower appellate Court also held that the Survey Commissioner did not survey the land which has been described as to be the path way. But although the averments in the plaint is a little vague the schedule and the sketch map appended to the plaint clearly show that it is not a public high way, but a village path way. The Survey Commissioner has also appended a hand sketch map (Ext. C 2) along with his report C 1. But although the averments in the plaint is a little vague the schedule and the sketch map appended to the plaint clearly show that it is not a public high way, but a village path way. The Survey Commissioner has also appended a hand sketch map (Ext. C 2) along with his report C 1. He has also specifically showed the location of the tank, its bank and path way. The lower appellate Court should have looked at the case from the specification of the boundary. Thus, I hold that there is enough force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. It is, however, true that essence of easement is that it should be a right over the property belonging not to the owner but to someone else. The point of law which arises turns on the nature of right claimed and the nature of the evidence by which such right is capable of being supported. The right claimed is actually an easement of necessity. But, it seems lower appellate Court failed to appreciate what easement of necessity is. Section 13 of the Easement Act contemplates that the easement which is claimed as easement of necessity, can be claimed as the only possible mode of enjoyment of the right claimed. In the case before m; the plaintiffs claimed the suit path as the only way of them for egress and ingress and without this pathway which admittedly belongs to the Government, they cannot come out of their houses. The kabala Ext Al and Ext Bl clearly show that there was a path way between the home-steads of the plaintiffs and the western bank of the tank. 12. So, in view of what is stated above the decision of learned lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. A village path way is not a public high way. So, in the case of obstruction of a village path way no proof of special damage arises. 13. It is found that the evidence on record is complete but the learned Munsiff did not arrive at any specific finding as to whether easement of necessity was specifically established. Learned appellate Court also failed to appreciate what easement of necessity is. So, in the case of obstruction of a village path way no proof of special damage arises. 13. It is found that the evidence on record is complete but the learned Munsiff did not arrive at any specific finding as to whether easement of necessity was specifically established. Learned appellate Court also failed to appreciate what easement of necessity is. If an easement appears to have been acquired either expressly or by necessary implication, it will amount to an easement of necessity under section 13 of the Easement Act for the purpose of being liable to be extinguished under section 41 of the Act. Hence, for the ends of justice the matter must be remanded to the first appellate Court which is, at present, the Court of District Judge to arrive at a finding on the merits after considering the case in all aspects. 14. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are hereby set aside. The case is remitted to the Court of District Judge North Tripura, for disposal according to law in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the records. There would be no order as to costs. 15. Send down the lower Courts records immediately.