JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.—This regular second appeal has been directed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 28-10-1988 of the learned District Judge, Chamba, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15-6-1988 of the Senior Sub-Judge, Chamba. 2 Respondents 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. They prayed for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction on the allegations that they are the owners and in possession of the land mearuring 1 bigha 3 biswas comprising of Khasra No, 684 in Mohal Mugla, Chamba town. The defendant is the owner and in possession of land measuring 7 biswas comprising of khasra Nos 1591/12^3 and 1584/1482 in the aforesaid Mohal Mugla There exists a path in the land comprising of khasra No 1584/ 1^82/1 as shown in the Aks Tatima annexed with the plaint and such path is being used by the plaintiffs for going to and coming from their land since the time of their forefathers. They have been taking their cattle also through this path In the month of Bhadon 2035 B K, the defendant has closed the path forcibly by plainting bushes. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and denied the existence of any path through his land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :— 1. Whether there is any passage of the plaintiffs over khasra No, 1584/1482/1 as alleged in para No. 2 of the plaint ? OP P. 2. If issue No. I is proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ? O P.P. 3. Whether the suit is within time ? O.P.P. 4. Whether act and conduct of the plaintiffs is a bar to the present suit? OPD 5. Whether plaintiffs have deposited Rs, 40 as costs for the filing of this suit as ordered by the court in previously instituted suit if not to what effect if not to what effect ? O.P.P. 6. Relief. The learned trial Court found issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs. Issues No 3 to 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 15 6-1988 the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. O.P.P. 6. Relief. The learned trial Court found issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs. Issues No 3 to 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 15 6-1988 the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 4 On a appeal having been carried before the learned District Judge by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there existed a path which has been blocked by the defendant by raising a brick wall and that there was an easement of necessity in favour of the plaintiffs 5 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge/the defendant has come up in appeal before this Court. At the very out set it may be stated that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside 6. A persual of the record shows that during pendency of the appeal, the learned District Judge, on the request of the parties, had inspected the spot on 25 10-1988 The requisite inspection note was recorded by the learned District Judge containing the observations made by him during such inspection 7. A persual of the record shows that during pendency of the appeal, the learned District Judge, on the request of the parties, had inspected the spot on 25 10-1988 The requisite inspection note was recorded by the learned District Judge containing the observations made by him during such inspection 7. The learned District Judge while arriving at the conclusion that there existed a path over which the plaintiffs have acquired an easementary right of necessity has based his findings solely on the observations made by him during the course of local inspection The learned District Judge has observed in para 9 of this judgment to the following effect:— "On the request of the parties, I visited the spot on 25 10-1988 to verify minutely, whether there are traces of path on the land purchased by defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1 or not, From the spot inspection, I found that by the side of Chamba Bharmour road, plot of defendant No. 1 is situated, which has been sold by defendant No, 1 to defendant No. 2, which was previously barren and by the side of this plot, there was a Nali in existence Above this plot, there is house constructed, by the side of the house there is a path left Above the house, there are agricultural fields of the appellants and if the path is not provided to the appellants, then it is not possible to cultivate the fields above the land of defendant No. 2 and certainly it caused inconvenience to the formers, because they cannot take their bullocks alongwith agricultural implements because there is no passage. I found from the spot position that Nidhia defendant No. 1 sold the entire land by the side of the road to various persons my making plots and the persons who purchased the plots have started construction I also found from the spot position that defendant No. 2 recently has covered the plot including the path, by raising a bricks wall. From the road, it is clear that the path was in existence, which was used by the appellants to have approach to reach to their fields, but the same has been blocked by putting stones and by planting bushes and raising a recent bricks wall By the side of this bricks wall a house is also in existence and from the place, where the house is in existence towards Bharmour side, there is no path upto a distance of 3—4 furlong. Neither there is path towards Chamba side to have approach to the fields of the appellants. I found that the bricks wall has been raised purposely to defeat and deprive the claim of the appellants to have approach to their agricultural fields. If the path is not provided, which is easement of necessity as per evidence of the appellants, then the appellants will face inconvenience and hardship and it would not be possible for the appellants to ask for a new path from the land of others." 8. Rule 18 of Order 18, Code of Civil Procedure deals with the power of the Court to carry out local inspections The object of this provision is to enable the court to understand the questions that are being raised and to follow and apply the evidence. The power to inspect has to be exercised only when the court feels that without inspection it will not be possible for it to assess the evidence and to dispose of the lis. The purpose of the spot inspection is not to substitute the evidence led by the parties. The apex Court in Ugam Singh and another v Kesrimal and others, AIR 1971 SC 2540, has held that a judgment should not be based solely on the basis of personal local inspection. The learned District Judge has, therefore, committed a grave error in substituting his own views formed as a result of local inspection for the evidence in the case and in basing his findings solely on such observations and impressions formed by him during the local inspection. Another error committed by the learned District Judge is that a new case has been made out by him for the plaintiffs. There are no pleadings with regard to the easement as of necessity. Another error committed by the learned District Judge is that a new case has been made out by him for the plaintiffs. There are no pleadings with regard to the easement as of necessity. The case as set up by the plaintiffs in their plaint is purely that there exists a path in the land belonging to the defendant. It is no where averred that the plaintiffs have acquired an easementary right of way as of necessity. 9. It is well settled that that a right of way as an easement of necessity has to be specifically pleaded and proved. Besides, an easement of necessity arises only where by a transfer, bequest or partition, a single tenement is divided into two or more separate and distinct tenements and any of these tenements (whether transferred or reserved) is so situated that it cannot be used at all without the enjoyment of a certain privilege on any other of such tenements. 10. It is the of neither party nor there is evidence to show that the lands owned and possessed by the parties ever constituted a single unit and that as a result of any subsequent transfer, bequest or partition such single unit came to be divided and bifurcated and on account of its situated one of the units was deprived of user without enjoyment of the privilege, like right of way 11. As stated above, the pure and simple case set up by the plaintiffs in their plaint is that there exists a path in the land belonging to the defendant since time immemorial. However, while alleging the existence of the path, neither the width of the path nor the points of fingress and/or egress have been pleaded and proved, The evidence led by the plaintiffs does not prove the existence of a path through the land comprising of khasra No. 1584/1482/1. 12. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned District Judge are set aside and that of the learned trial Court restored. Parties bear their costs. Appeal allowed. -