JUDGMENT R L. Khurana, J.—This regular second appeal has been directed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 1-9-1988 of the learned District Judge, Una, affirming the judgment and decree dated 15-3-1985 of the learned Sub-Judge (JI), Una, 2 The dispute between the parties pertains to the site ABCD as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the site in dispute. 3. The houses of the parties are located in village Dhatwara. The site in dispute intervenes and falls in between the houses of the parties. While the house of the plaintiffs is alleged to be in existence for the last more than 30 years, the house of the defendants is of recent origin. The plaintiffs, house lies towards the North of the defendants house 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the site in dispute is owned by them They had kept the same vacant for being used as a passage and to ensure regular flow of light and air. The rain water from the eaves of their house also fall on the site in dispute. A few days before the suit the defendants had collected building material for the construction of a house on the site in dispute and they had exhibited an intention to encroach upon the same The plaintiffs accordingly filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any type of construction over the site in dispute, In the alternative, the plaintiffs averred that in case they are not held to be the owners of the site in dispute, they have acquired prescriptive right of easement of way, light and air over the site in dispute since they have been using the site in dispute for such purposes openly as of right without any interference for a continuous period of 30 years. 5. While resisting the suit, the defendants asserted their ownership and possession over the site in dispute, it was further averred that the plaintiffs at the time of construction of their house, had infact encroached upon their land, 6. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties :— 1. Whether the site marked ABCD is in possession of the plaintiffs for the last 30 years ? If so its effect ? OPP. 2. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties :— 1. Whether the site marked ABCD is in possession of the plaintiffs for the last 30 years ? If so its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired easementary right over the suit land as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have encroached upon the suit land ?OPD. 4. Relief. 7. The learned trial Court while dealing with issues No. 1 and 2 together came to the conclusion that the site in dispute is coming in possession of the plaintiffs for the last about 30 years and as such, they have acquired a right over it. Since issue No. 3 was not pressed by the defendants, the same was accordingly decided against them Consequently, the learned trial Court granted a decree on 15-3-1985 in favour of the plaintiffs directing the demolition of super structure raised by the defendants over the site in dispute. 8 The learned District Judge, on an appeal having been preferred before him by the defendants affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court The site in dispute was held to be a part of the property of the plaintiffs. In other words, plaintiffs were held to be the owners of the site in dispute, Accordingly, the alternative plea put forth by the plaintiffs was held to have become redundant. 9. The defendants have thus approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal. 10 The first question arising for determination is as to whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the site in dispute. 11. Admittedly, the site in dispute lies in between the properties of the parties. The site in dispute is located towards the south of the plaintiffs house and towards the North of defendants property. It has come in evidence that presently the defendants are in possession of the site in dispute and they have raised some super-structure thereon. 12. No documentary evidence is coming on the record with regard to the title of the plaintiffs qua the site in dispute. There are neither pleadings nor evidence to show as to which khasra No. the site in dispute forms a part. 12. No documentary evidence is coming on the record with regard to the title of the plaintiffs qua the site in dispute. There are neither pleadings nor evidence to show as to which khasra No. the site in dispute forms a part. It is also not on the record to show in which khasra No. the houses of the parties are located Even the site plan annexed with the plaint and which depicts the site in dispute does not disclose the relevant khasra Nos, 13. The oral evidence coming on the record is only to the effect that that the windows and ventilators of the plaintiffs house open towards the site in dispute and that the main entrance of the house is towards the South. Such evidence even if accepted on its face value will not establish that the plaintiffs are the owners of the site in dispute or that the same forms part of the plaintiffs property. In view of the specific claim of the plaintiffs, the onus was heavily on them to prove their ownership qua the site in dispute. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge such onus. 14. On the evidence coming on the record the site in dispute cannot be said to be a part of the property of the plaintiffs. The findings of the two Courts below on the point are bad and cannot be sustained. 15. Next arises the question whether the plaintiffs have acquired right of easement by way of prescription over the site in dispute. 16. It is significant to note that the plaintiffs have not admitted the ownership of the defendants qua the site in dispute while claiming to have acquired easementary right in respect thereof. The plea of easement can be set up only against the owner. No finding as to easementary right can be possibly given in the absence of the owner of the site in dispute. 17. Even otherwise the evidence coming on the record does not establish the use of the site in dispute for the requisite statutory period for acquisition of easementary rights by way of prescription. Paras Ram plaintiff while appearing as PW 1 has stated that the site in dispute forms part of his land. He has not stated even a single word with regard to the easementary right. The other witnesses of the plaintiffs also have not stated anything in this regard. Paras Ram plaintiff while appearing as PW 1 has stated that the site in dispute forms part of his land. He has not stated even a single word with regard to the easementary right. The other witnesses of the plaintiffs also have not stated anything in this regard. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be held to have acquired easementary rights by way of prescription over the site in dispute. 18. In Purani Dhirajlal Amritlal v Mehta Sankleshwar Aditram and another, AIR 1976 Guj 180, the plaintiff therein claimed himself to be the owner and in possession of the Chhindi in dispute. Alternatively, he claimed easementary rights in respect thereof. While claiming easementary rights he never acknowledged the ownership of the defendant over the Chhindi in dispute. It was held that an inconsistent plea of ownership and easement can be taken in the alternative. However, where the plaintiff claimed the Chhindi in dispute as of his exclusive ownership, possession and enjoyment and no where stated any facts which would show that he acknowledged the ownership of the defendant over the Chhindi in dispute, but on the contrary asserted his ownership even in the evidence, it could not be said that there was requisite animus which is necessary ingredient for the proof of easementary claim This was more so when the plaintiff had failed to make an election at the time the evidence was led or subsequent to it Evidence of immemorial user adduced in support of a right founded on ownership does not, when the right of ownership is negatived, tend to establish an easement. 19 In the present case as well the plaintiffs have asserted their ownership and possession over the site in dispute. Their claim based on title stands negatived. Therefore, even if they be held to have been able to prove their user of the site in dispute for the last more than 30 years, such user will not establish their easementary right 20. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs throughout