JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This appeal is directed Q against the judgment dated 30-5-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 11/97 whereby Title Suit No. 248/88 has been decreed in reversal to the judgment of dismissal passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, Dhubri. 2. The appeal was admitted by the order dated 3-8-1998 for hearing on certain substantial questions of law. On 2-2-2005, the questions formulated earlier have been recast and the substantial question of law formulated for adjudication in this Second Appeal, after hearing the learned Counsel, for the parties is as below: Whether the plaintiff/respondent could establish a case for decree of the suit declaring their right of easement of necessity over the suit path as provided under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882? 3. I have heard Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit for declaration of right of easement over a path described in the schedule to the plaint and for permanent injunction. Their case before the Trial Court was that they had purchased a plot of land measuring 2 katha 10 lechas from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Md. Meher Ali Sk. and Mustt. Meherban Bibi in the year 1975 by a registered sale deed No. 8633. The land so purchased appertains to Dag No. 291 of Khatian No. 28 of village Jhagrapar Pt. III. The respondent after taking over possession, constructed residential house thereon and also got her name mutated. The dispute started when the vendors sold a part of their land property to defendant No. 4 Sahed Ali Khandkar who along with defendant No. 5 Md. Awal Sk. constructed their residential houses in the plot purchased by them. The PWD road from Dhubri to Goripur is on the eastern side of the residential premises of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The link road from the house of the plaintiff to the P. W. D. road measures about 75 feet in length and 6 feet in breadth. It is on the eastern boundary of the premises of the defendant No. 1 and others. The link road from the house of the plaintiff to the P. W. D. road measures about 75 feet in length and 6 feet in breadth. It is on the eastern boundary of the premises of the defendant No. 1 and others. This road is the only link road from the residence of the plaintiff to the P. W. D. road, there being no other alternative' path. This path has been described in Schedule-F. The plaintiff was given the right of easement of necessity to use this path and in pursuance thereof she has been so using the path till the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 suddenly constructed a thatched house in the middle part of the path blocking the passage. Hence the suit was filed for the reliefs indicated above. 5. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein the allegations made have been denied. Apart from various legal pleas, it is averred that the plaintiff never used any passage over the F-Schedule land as claimed. According to them, the plaintiff had been using a different path since long time back for approach to the PWD road and this path runs through the land, of one Elapuddin, Maser Sk. and Futali Bewa. 6. Upon pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? 4. Whether defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have illegally constructed thatched house over the schedule 'F' land and thereby cause obstruction in the lawful enjoyment of the plaintiffs right to use the land as alleged? 5. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? 7. Before the Trial Court the plaintiff examined three witnesses in respect of her case whereas the defendants examined four witnesses. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had been using the passage for thirteen years whereas the law relating to easementary right by way of prescription requires user for a period of twenty years. 7A. The learned First Appellate Court, in the judgment under appeal, decided the dispute in terms of the provisions of Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act and decreed the suit. 7A. The learned First Appellate Court, in the judgment under appeal, decided the dispute in terms of the provisions of Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act and decreed the suit. The learned First Appellate Court observed that the land used as path (Schedule-F) belonged to the common original owner from whom it was purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff had purchased the land prior to purchase by the defendants and she was in use of this path as access to the PWD road. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court decided to dispose of the rival contentions in accordance with Section 13 of the Easements Act which reads as follows: 13. Easements of necessity and quasi-easements. Where one person transfers or bequeaths immovable property to another— (a) if an easement in other immovable property of the transferor or testator is necessary for enjoying the subject of the transfer or bequest, the transferee or legatee shall be entitled to such easement; or (b) if such an easement is apparent and continuous and necessary for enjoying the said subject as it was enjoyed when the transfer or bequest took effect, the transferee or legatee shall, unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, be entitled to such easement; (c) if an easement in the subject of the transfer of bequest is necessary for enjoying other immovable property of the transferor or testator the transferor or the legal representative of the testator shall be entitled to such easement; (d) if such an easement is apparent and continuous and necessary for enjoying the said property as it was enjoyed when the transfer or bequest took effect, the transferor or the legal representative of the testator, shall, unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, be entitled to such easement. (e)... (f)... 8. It would appear from the provisions of Section 13 of the Act quoted above in part that a transferee of an immovable property would be entitled to the right of easement over other immovable property of the transferor if it is so necessary for the purpose of enjoying the immovable property transferred. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had purchased the land from the original owner prior the purchase of the defendants. The land purchased by the parties are different. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had purchased the land from the original owner prior the purchase of the defendants. The land purchased by the parties are different. However, the defendants after purchase have been allegedly obstructing the pathway of the plaintiff over a part of the land situated on the eastern boundary of their land which, according to the plaintiff (respondent), is the only pathway connecting their premises with the PWD road. 9. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable being barred by the law of limitation. While doing so, the learned Trial Court fell in error in taking into account the provisions of Section 15 of the Easements Act. In the instant case, the factual matrix as depicted above called for review of the order in the light of the provisions in Section 13. The learned First Appellate Court has corrected this error committed by the learned Trial Judge. 10. I have gone through the evidence on record as well as the reasons recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court noticed that the dispute is in respect of a pathway which belonged to the original owner from whom the parties purchased their respective premises. The plaintiff in their evidence has maintained the stand consistently that there is no alternative path available to them as an outlet to the main road. In fact, this has been impliedly admitted by the defendants in their written statement. Their plea is that the plaintiff had been using a different path since long time back for approach to the PWD road which runs through the land of one Elapuddin, Maser Sk. and Futali Bewa. These persons are not the original owners pf the land and the plaintiff cannot exercise any right of passage through their land. The evidence also do not disclose existence of any alternative path. Therefore, the plaintiff (respondent) cannot be denied of their right of passage from their residential premises to the PWD road. 11. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff has been able to establish a case of easement by necessity as prescribed under Section 13 of the Easements Act as because they have been able to establish that for effective use of property (land purchased by them) right of easement through the land described in Schedule-F is necessary. 11. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff has been able to establish a case of easement by necessity as prescribed under Section 13 of the Easements Act as because they have been able to establish that for effective use of property (land purchased by them) right of easement through the land described in Schedule-F is necessary. The Court has to take a pragmatic view of the facts and circumstances made available in this case. The judgment under appeal calls for no interference by this Court. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed