JUDGMENT The appellant filed a suit on the basis of easement of necessity. This was decreed. This judgment passed by the trial Court has been reversed. This is how this Second Appeal has come to be filed. The brief facts are as under : The parties to this litigation arc related. This is so stated in para 1 & 2 of the plaint. The plaintiff's case was that they had been using a passage since long and as this was sought to be blocked the necessity to file the suit arose. It was claimed that there is no other passage available to them. The trial Court recorded a findings to the effect. i) that there is no other passage. ii) that towards north the land is owned by Risal & Partap Singh. iii) Partap Singh appeared as P.W. 2 and staled that he and Risal Singh are absolute owners and that the plaintiffs had no access through their land. On the above reasoning the suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court has reversed the findings on the ground that the appellants can use and can have access through the land of Risal Singh and Prasap Singh. The further fact noted is that as the plaintiffs purchased the land from Kunwar Pal and as Kunwar Pal had no right, therefore, the plaintiffs would also have no right. This is clear misreading of the pleadings. In the plaint, in para 3, it is stated that it is the defendants who purchased the land from Kunwar Pal. Thus, the finding recorded by the Court below is not based on proper appreciation of pleadings. I have seen the plan prepared by the local Commissioner. There is no other passage available to the plaintiffs. The finding recorded by the first appellate Court that the plaintiffs can have access from the land of Risal Singh and Pratap Singh have been recorded on wrong appreciation of factual position. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that the plaintiffs have been using the passage in dispute and that there is no other passage. This has not been considered at all. It may be seen that in the pleading paras 1 and 2, it has categorically said that the passage was being used for more than 40 years. It is stated that even the ancestors were using it. This has not been considered at all. It may be seen that in the pleading paras 1 and 2, it has categorically said that the passage was being used for more than 40 years. It is stated that even the ancestors were using it. In the statement of plaintiff P.W. 1, he has stated that they have been using it for ever (HAMESHA SE). The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on one line in the statement that Panchas got the settlement effected. This line is being read in isolation. On proper reading of the pleadings and the statement of the plaintiff, it is clear user for about 40 years was pleaded. In any case, the finding given by the trial Court with regard to easement of necessity cannot be taken exception to. There is no other passage available to the appellant. This appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the Court below is set aside and that of trial Court is restored. There would be no order as to costs.