Judgment A.K. Gohil, J. ( 1. ) This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-"Whether the learned lower appellate Court, having found that there is a lane in between the two disputed houses, erred in law in ignoring the evidence of material witnesses to arrive at a finding that easement as well as encroachment was not proved ? ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case arc that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction as well as for permanent injunction saying therein that there is one passage exists between the houses of the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant / respondent towards the north side and the defendant has closed it by raising construction of Otla thereon. Therefore, decree for mandatory/permanent injunction he granted against the respondent and he be directed to remove the Otla and also be restrained from closing the aforesaid gali and restraining the plaintiff to use it, as it is a part of his easementary right, which he is using for the last 20 years. ( 3. ) Trial court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his easementary right over the .aforesaid gali and found that no case is made out for infringement of his easementary right and dismissed the suit. This finding is affirmed by the lower appellate court in appeal. It was submitted that though the lower appellate court has found the existence of such a passage between the two houses, but was of the view that the appellant has failed to prove his easementary right over the same and dismissed the appeal. ( 4. ) In case of Chapsibhai Vs. Purshottam AIR 1971 SC 1878 , the Apex court has held that- "a party to a suit can plead inconsistent pleas in the alternative such as the right of ownership and a right of easement. But, where he has pleaded ownership and has failed, he can not subsequently turn around and claim that right as an easement by prescription. To prove the latter, it is necessary to establish that it was exercised on some one elses property and not as an incident of his own ownership of that property. But, where he has pleaded ownership and has failed, he can not subsequently turn around and claim that right as an easement by prescription. To prove the latter, it is necessary to establish that it was exercised on some one elses property and not as an incident of his own ownership of that property. For that purpose, his consciousness that he was exercising that right on the property is a necessary ingredient in proof of the establishment of that right as an easement." S. Admittedly, the plaintiff / appellant has neither proved that he was the owner of the aforesaid gali, nor has proved or established that his right is easementary right over the same. Thus, in my considered opinion, both the courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal. Question is answered accordingly and this appeal is dismissed with no costs. Appeal dismissed.