JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom the appellate Court of III Addl. Distt. Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/96 by judgment dated 20-7-95 passed a decree that the disputed Gali was joint ownership of the plaintiff/respondent with a right to use it jointly and a further injunction that the defendant will not raise any construction in this joint Gali and defendant will not obstruct the plaintiff from opening his doors and windows in this Gali and a direction to remove whatever wall or construction has been raised by the defendant. By this judgment the appellate Court has reversed the judgment of Addl. Civil Judge Class I, Morena in case No. 102-A/92 decided on 20-7-95. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was for the relief now granted by the appellate Court. The suit was filed on 10-4-89. 2. It was a simple suit in respect of a portion described as disputed Gali by red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint. The claim was that the plaintiff purchased the adjoining land enclosed with green colour lines in that plan from Savitribai vide sale deed Ex. P-1 on 17-7-88. In this sale deed all the rights belonging to Savitri, in the disputed Gali shown in red colour, was also sold to the plaintiff. On the opposite side of this Gali there is land of defendant Siyaram who has died during the pendency of this appeal and Vijay is his legal representative. The grievance of the plaintiff was that Siyaram and Vijay wanted to obstruct this Gali by raising construction. They wanted to obstruct plaintiff's passage in this Gali and his right to use this Gali as approach to his purchased portion. The defendant had denied that the Gali was joint or there was any right of easement either purchased by plaintiff or accrued to him otherwise. 3. Before the trial Court the parties went on trial on following issues-- (i) Whether the plaintiff by registered sale deed 7-7-88 purchased half share in the disputed Gali as situate in survey Nos. 652 and 659 in village Badokhar ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff's doors and windows open towards this disputed land ? (iii) Whether the defendant's wall exists adjoining the wall of the plaintiff house in his purchased land towards the north ? 652 and 659 in village Badokhar ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff's doors and windows open towards this disputed land ? (iii) Whether the defendant's wall exists adjoining the wall of the plaintiff house in his purchased land towards the north ? (iv) Whether the plaintiff had the right of easement of user in the disputed land ? (v) Whether the defendant started digging land adjacent to the house of the plaintiff towards the north in the disputed Gali ? (vi) Whether the plaint was properly valued for purpose of Court fees and Court fees was properly paid ? (vii) Relief. 4. The trial Court found that purchase of any rights in the disputed Gali by plaintiff from Savitri was not proved. Other issues were also decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. 5. The appellate Court has specifically found that the sale deed Ex. P-1 establishes beyond doubt that rights in this Gali were sold by Savitri to plaintiff. The parties' predecessors had admitted it a joint passage in a memorandum of partition which was in the form of written agreement, proved on record as Ex. P-2 dated 27-5-66. This agreement was recorded between joint owners of the entire land who had effected partition. They were Siyaram, Pyarelal and Gulabsingh. The site plan copy of which is P-5 was part of the agreement Ex. P-2 and this depicted the different portions falling to the share of 3 co-owners and in this site plan this portion, which is now the disputed Gali, was described as 'Gali Mushtarka'. The adjoining portion towards the south had fallen to the share of Pyarelal. Vijay, in his evidence as D.W. 1 admitted the correctness of the agreement P-2 and also of site plain Ex. P-5. He admitted that the lane was joint and shown joint in the plan. 6. There is no dispute that from Pyarelal his portion had passed to Savitri who is daughter-in-law of Pyarelal and Savitri sold it to the plaintiff. 7. In view of these established and admitted facts, the appellate Court found that the plaintiff had purchased land from Savitri along with her rights in the joint lane which is in dispute. So he had the right to pass through it and right to open the doors and windows. Hence the decree. 8. 7. In view of these established and admitted facts, the appellate Court found that the plaintiff had purchased land from Savitri along with her rights in the joint lane which is in dispute. So he had the right to pass through it and right to open the doors and windows. Hence the decree. 8. Vide order dated 24-4-97, this Court admitted this appeal on following questions:-- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on basis of the easementary right without appreciating that there were no pleadings as required under the law not it was pleaded that it was an easement of necessity ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below were justified in disbelieving the statement of Savitri Bai and placing reliance upon the document without appreciating that the scribe of the document was not examined ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the suit of the plaintiff was rightly decreed by the two Courts ? 9. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is two fold. Firstly that Savitri had made a statement in Court as D.W. 3 that although she executed the sale deed Ex. P-1 in favour of the plaintiff about the land which came to her from Pyarelal, but she never intended to sell any rights in the disputed Gali adjoining to the sold land. She did not know the contents of the sale deed and signed it without understanding the contents which was described by the plaintiff. The counsel's assertion is that her statement should be acted upon and it should be held that no rights in the lane adjoining the land were sold. The second assertion is that the plaintiff had alleged easementary rights of passage but neither easement of necessity for acquisition of rights by prescription was either pleaded or proved. So decree on the basis of easementary rights of passage could not be passed. 10. A perusal of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff had pleaded that he purchased his land shown by green colour in the plan, along with all rights of owner held by her in the joint lane. The width of the lane was 15 feet. 10. A perusal of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff had pleaded that he purchased his land shown by green colour in the plan, along with all rights of owner held by her in the joint lane. The width of the lane was 15 feet. It was pleaded that this land was left as joint lane in the partition between Pyarelal and others. So the plea was that the defendant had no right to construct in this joint lane purchased by plaintiff from successors of Pyarelal. Although the word 'easement' is also used in it but it is in the sense of user of land for passage to his house and not in the sense of easement by necessity or easement by prescription. 11. Although the finding, whether the particular disputed lane is a joint lane or not is a finding of fact, and, therefore, cannot be disturbed by this Court in second appeal unless basis of the finding does not exist, yet in order to ascertain whether there was no basis for the finding, this Court has looked into the relevant documents and evidence. These are the agreement Ex. P-2 which is a memorandum of partition between 3 brothers Pyarelal, Siyaram and Gulabsingh and of which agreement the site plan Ex. P-5 is an integral part. The agreement is a registered deed and not disputed between the parties as Vijay admits it. Even the site plan is admitted. It shows the disputed portion as 'joint Gali'. The parties cannot get out of this document as it is their admission either by them or their predecessor. It also shows what rights the joint owners had in this disputed lane. It was a right of joint passage which means no party can appropriate any portion of it exclusively to itself. The second important document is sale deed Ex. P-1. The relevant portion of the sale deed is the recital which recites that the particular piece of land measuring 63 feet 6" multiplied by 13' 2" alongwith the construction and alongwith share in the Gali existing towards north in which side there was also a passage and there was a right to pass through it was being sold to the vendee Dinesh by Savitri. 12. A plan attached to the sale deed also describes depicts this joint lane in which rights were sold. 13. 12. A plan attached to the sale deed also describes depicts this joint lane in which rights were sold. 13. The statements of Savitri in Court, that she did not know if any right about the lane was also sold, is totally unreliable and has to be discarded. She is apparently siding with the defendant being closely related. She is making the statement when she had no interest left in the Gali in order to cause harm to the plaintiff and to give advantage to her near and dear ones. So her statement is useless. She never challenged this sale deed in any Court of law. 14. From the twin documents mentioned above it is fully inferable beyond doubt that the disputed lane was joint between the parties and the rights of Pyarelal in this lane were passed to the plaintiff by sale deed executed by Savitri who is successor of Pyarelal. So the findings of the appellate Court are based on sound and proved material on record. These findings cannot be disturbed as they are without any infirmity. 15. The other questions framed as questions of law become redundent. The plaintiff claim is not on mere easement but on joint right of user as passage on jointly acquired passage. 16. In view of this finding the plaintiff suit was rightly decreed. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed with costs.