N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-11-1979 passed by Shri M. Roy. Learned Subordinate Judge, Purulia in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1975 decreeing the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29/03/1976 passed by Shri B. Basu. learned Munsif, Purulia dismissing the Title Suit No. 177 of 1973 of his Court. ( 2 ) SHRI Sitanath Banerjee and Shri Trilochan Banerjee are two brothers had their bastu and other lands on the contiguous south of Manbazar - Dhanara Road, Purulia comprised in C. S. plot Nos. 2530, 2531, 2532, 2526, 2527 and 2525. One Brajalal Banerjee was the owner of C. S. plot No. 2529 lying to the contiguous south of C. S. plot No. 2530. After the death of Brajalal his three sons sold plot No. 2529 to Trilochan and Karali, son of Sitanath upon a registered sale deed dated 20-12-1941. In Falgoon 1358 B. S. , there was amicable partition between Trilochan and Karali and a memo of partition was drawn up on 24-2-1952 corresponding to 11th Falgun 1358 B. S. signed by both the parties and other respectable persons of the village. Two lists were prepared - one list showing the lands allotted to Trilochan and the other showing the lands allotted to Karali and the lists were given to the parties. Karali got C. S. plot Nos. 2530, 2529 and other plots exclusively. After the death of Karali his heirs sold and southern half of plot No. 2529 measuring 1. 5 decimals to Smt. Durga Rani, wife of Patik Mukherjee. Subsequently, the heirs of the Karali sold northern half of C. S. plot No. 2529 measuring 1. 5 decimals and 1 decimal out of C. S. plot No. 2530 to Urmila Debi, wife of Sudhir Ganguli and the plaintiff-respondent here purchased the share of Urmila Debi upon a registered sale deed dated 5-12-1967. The house of the plaintiff-respondent is to the west of C. S. plot No. 2529 intervened by a gali rasta being C. S. plot No. 2522. He fenced his purchased lands by walls and he is all through in possession. The house of the plaintiff-respondent is to the west of C. S. plot No. 2529 intervened by a gali rasta being C. S. plot No. 2522. He fenced his purchased lands by walls and he is all through in possession. During the R. S. operation, C. S. plot No. 2529 was recorded in the name of Urmila Debi in R. S. plot No. 2801 and in the name of Durga Rani wife of Patik Mukherjee in R. S. plot No. 2800. Trilochan Banerjee's share has ultimately developed upon the defendant appellant's heirs. They are in possession of the bastu and other lands of Trilochan Banerjee. The defendant's claim portion of C. S. plot No. 2529 as indicated in Schedule II in the plaint as their passage. According to the plaintiff-respondent, Trilochan or his successors had no right, title or interest in the said disputed Schedule II property. There was some litigations between the parties in the Criminal Court and there after the plaintiff appellant filed the instant suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. ( 3 ) THE defendant-appellant filed a written statement to contest the suit. Apart from taking separate technical objections about the maintainability of the suit, they stated, inter alia, in the written statement that the house of Trilochan Banerjee being situated in the northern extremity of C. S. plot No. 2531 covering the entire northern portion had no space for ingress or egress from abutting Manbazar - Dhanara Road on the north. Trilochan had been using C. S. plot No. 2529 as his passage for ingress and egress from his house to the gali rasta being plot No. 2522 leading to Manbazar - Dhanara Road on the north. They admit that there was an amicable partition of the joint properties between Karali and Trilochan in Falgun 1358 B. S. and two papers were prepared showing the shares of the respective parties. It is their further case that due to inadvertence or mistake of the scribe of the documents and the parties, a mistake crept in the said papers in respect of C. S. plot No. 2529. According, to the defendant-appellant, by the said partition. 02 acres of C. S. plot No. 2530 and. 02 acres of C. S. plot No. 2529 were allotted to Karali and. According, to the defendant-appellant, by the said partition. 02 acres of C. S. plot No. 2530 and. 02 acres of C. S. plot No. 2529 were allotted to Karali and. 01 acre of C. S. plot No. 2529 and other plots were allotted to the shares of Trilochan. But. 01 acre of land of plot No. 2529 in the allotment paper of Trilochan was not mentioned through oversight. The said land was about 6 cubits wide from north to south and running from east to west emanating from C. S. plot No. 2532 leading to the gali rasta in C. S. plot No. 2522 from east to west. ( 4 ) THE parties went to trial on the issues framed and the learned Munsif after hearing the parties and going through the documents was pleased to dismiss the suit on contest. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of dismissal the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 28 of 1976 and the said appeal was disposed of by Shri M. Roy, learned Subordinate Judge, Purulia by the impugned judgment and decree. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal on contest with costs. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the defendant-appellant have preferred this appeal contending, inter alia, that the learned Court of appeal below should not have allowed the appeal on the sole question of title to the disputed plot without considering the oral and documentary evidence on the point; that the learned Court of Appeal wrongly decided the question of existence of an alternative passage leading to the bastu land of the defendant relying solely upon the Pleader Commissioner's report and that the defendant-appellant alternative case of easement of necessity ought to have considered and that the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court below should be set aside. ( 7 ) THE appeal is hotly contested. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that Sitanath and Trilochan were two brothers and that Brajalal was the owner of C. S. plot No. 2529. Upon his death, his three sons, namely, (1) Panchanan, (2) Bhabataran and (3) Panchkari sold their right, title and interest in C. S. plot No. 2529 to Trilochan and Karali upon a registered deed of sale dated 20-12-1941. Upon his death, his three sons, namely, (1) Panchanan, (2) Bhabataran and (3) Panchkari sold their right, title and interest in C. S. plot No. 2529 to Trilochan and Karali upon a registered deed of sale dated 20-12-1941. There is also no dispute that was an amicable partition between Trilochan and Karali, son of Sitanath in Falgun 1358 B. S. and further that two separate lists of allotments were prepared and given to the parties showing their respective allotments. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that Karali got in his share of C. S. plot Nos. 2529 and 2530. The case of the defendant-appellant is that 1 decimal out of plot No. 2529 was allotted to the share of Trilochan along with other plots but in the allotment paper of Trilochan through mistake this 1 decimal of land out of C. S. plot No. 2529 was not included. The learned courts below have found that the defendant-appellant have failed to prove their title in respect of 1 decimal of land of plot No. 2529. This being a finding on fact made by the two Courts below and that there being no perversity on the findings on the materials, it is found that there is hardly any scope of interference on that point in Second Appeal. ( 9 ) THE only other point is whether the defendant-appellant have been able to make out a case of easement. The learned Munsif has been pleased to find that the defendant-appellant have a right of way by easement of necessity. In the written statement the defendant-appellant have pleaded both easement by prescription and also easement of necessity. The question is whether this is a substantial question of law as it has been argued by the learned Lawyer for the plaintiff-respondent that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It has been held in a case reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 Sir Chunilal v. Mehata etc. v. Centutry Spinning and Manufacture Co. The question is whether this is a substantial question of law as it has been argued by the learned Lawyer for the plaintiff-respondent that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It has been held in a case reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 Sir Chunilal v. Mehata etc. v. Centutry Spinning and Manufacture Co. Ltd. that the proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Apex Court of the land or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. Here in our case the question of law raised substantially affects the rights of the parties, hence it is a substantial question of law. ( 10 ) SO far as the question of easement of necessity is concerned it is to be seen whether the test of easement of necessity has been satisfied in this case. Way back in 1969 it was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Sailendra Nath Sadhukhan and another v. Chhotelal Shaw reported in 74 CWN 869 : (AIR 1970 Cal 889) that the expression 'user' which is normally used in laying down the test of easement of necessity means 'effective user' although it is different and distinct from convening or reasonable user. ( 11 ) HERE the case of the defendant-appellant is that on the severance of unity of ownership the easements of necessity arose. The general principle is that on severance of common ownership there are two cases in which the right usually described as quasi easement passes to the grantee. One such case is whether the accommodation is required to be continued even after the severance, provided its continuance is found essential for the beneficial and reasonable enjoyment of the severed tenement, to the extent to which the accommodation was enjoyed before the unity of the tenements under single ownership broke up. In such a case, the continuance or reservation of the accommodation or privilege may be inferred or implied. In such a case, the continuance or reservation of the accommodation or privilege may be inferred or implied. Another case where such accommodation or privilege is continued is whether the owner, at the time of single ownership, expressly reserved to himself or to the severed tenement, the privileges which existed prior to the severance. The position of law is that although ordinarily a qusi easement is to be expressly reserved, there are cases where the quasi easement may be implied to have been reserved. One such case undoubtedly is the case of easement of way as of necessity. In such a case it is the necessity which justifies an inference of implied reservation of an accommodation of way. Such implied reservation should not however, be too freely inferred vide AIR 1960 Cal 592 . ( 12 ) IN the case at hand there was a local inspection by a Survey passed Pleader Commissioner. His report has been marked exhibit 4. As many as four witnesses including the defendant-appellant No. 1 have been examined. Sri Gobardhan Chowdhuri D. W. 1 is a Up-Pradhan of Manbazar Anchal. In his evidence he has stated that the disputed Schedule II land to the plaint was not partitioned but was left ejmali. He has supported the case of the defendant-appellant about the user of the disputed passage. Shri Aswini Modan, D. W. 2 has also stated that he saw the disputed Schedule II land being used as a passage by both Trilochan. and Sitanath. Shri Radha Raman Mukherjee, D. W. 3 has stated that there are two documents at the time of amicable partition between Karali and Trilochan and plot Nos. were put in the two documents. Nothing was left ejmali. Two witnesses have been examined on the side of the plaintiff-respondent. They have stated about the existence of a gali rasta to the west of Trilochan's house and west of Ashu Babu's house from going of Trilochan's house to Manbazar - Dhanara Road. The witness on the side of the defendant-appellant have denied the existence of such a road. From the report of the Pleader Commissioner, it appears that he found the existence of such a gali. It is 30 links in length and 5 links in width. The witness on the side of the defendant-appellant have denied the existence of such a road. From the report of the Pleader Commissioner, it appears that he found the existence of such a gali. It is 30 links in length and 5 links in width. The learned Appellate Court below after considering of this material has been pleased to hold rightly that the existence of this road demolishes the story of absence of no other passage for going to Manbazar Dhanara Road from the house of the defendant-appellant. Moreover, from the situation and location of C. S. plot No. 2530 and C. S. plot No. 2531, it appears that both the plots are abutting Manbazar - Dhanara Road on the south. It is very difficult to gulp the story that there was no opening on the main road abutting the northern side of C. S. plot No. 2531 except through passage in dispute. There is absolutely nothing to show in this case that at the time of amicable partition the right of ways of the defendant-appellant was reserved by Karali. It has neither been proved though for the effective user of the property of the defendant-appellant, the user of the disputed passage is a necessity. ( 13 ) IN this view of the matter, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed. Ordered ( 14 ) THAT the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest with costs. The judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court are affirmed. Appeal