JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S. No. 946 of 2002 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa is the Appellant herein. She filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the Respondent herein from using 'A B C D lane/passage' shown in the plaint plan. She pleaded that the property adjoining to the passage was purchased by her in the year 1968 and thereafter she constructed a house in the year 1984 and fixed a gate opening to the lane. She further pleaded that the said passage is the only access for her to the main road and there was absolutely no justification for the Respondent to obstruct her access. It was further pleaded that she filed a suit against the Municipality, Kadapa, when attempts were made to interfere with the passage and the same was decreed. 2. Respondent filed written statement stating that the Appellant has no right vis-à-vis the passage and that it exclusively belongs to him. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 20-02-2006. It was observed that the Appellant did not get any right of prescription. Thereupon, she filed A.S. No. 49 of 2006 before the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 12-08-2009. Hence, this Second Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the evidence on record discloses that the Appellant was using the passage ever since she constructed the house in the year 1984 and still the trial Court dismissed the suit. He contends that the trial Court has framed certain issues touching upon the right of easement vis-à-vis the passage, though the suit was for the relief of injunction simplicitor. Learned Counsel further submits that the lower appellate Court also erred in upholding the evidence recorded by the trial Court. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Appellant failed to prove her right vis-à-vis the passage. According to him, the trial Court has dealt with the question as to whether the Appellant acquired any right by way of prescriptive since that question was canvassed before it. He submits that once the Appellant failed to establish her right by way of prescription, there is no other way in which she can claim the relief of perpetual injunction. According to him, the trial Court has dealt with the question as to whether the Appellant acquired any right by way of prescriptive since that question was canvassed before it. He submits that once the Appellant failed to establish her right by way of prescription, there is no other way in which she can claim the relief of perpetual injunction. He further submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court would not warrant any interference. 6. The suit filed by the Appellant was for the relief of injunction simplicitor. However, the pleadings of the parties have brought forward certain controversies as to nature of the passage and the corresponding rights of the parties vis-à-vis the same. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration. 1. Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of A B C D road? 2. Whether the A B C D road is private rasths of the Defendant as alleged by Defendant? 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction? 4. To what relief? Additional Issue: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is acquired the right of easement by way of prescription? 7. On behalf of the Appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were filed. Respondent deposed as DW-1 and he filed Exs.B-1 and B-2. On dismissal of the suit, Appellant filed A.S. No. 49 of 2006. The lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., whether the Appellant is entitled for the relief of setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court; and the appeal was ultimately dismissed. 8. In a suit for relief of injunction simplicitor, the predominant question would be as to whether the Plaintiff has proved the exercise of his rights vis-à-vis the property as on the date of filing the suit. The reference to title or other entitlement in such matters would be only in the limited context of lending some legal support to the enjoyment of rights. If it is proved that the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property concerned or he was exercising the rights pleaded by him as on the date of filing the suit, grant of relief becomes as a matter of course. If it is proved that the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property concerned or he was exercising the rights pleaded by him as on the date of filing the suit, grant of relief becomes as a matter of course. The only area of verification would be as to whether such exercise of rights has legal backing, and is in existence for a reasonably long period. In the instant case, there Was no dispute that the Appellant was using the passage ever since she constructed the house in the year 1984. Though the Respondent, as DW-1, stated in the chief examination that the Appellant never used the passage, it was elicited through him in the cross-examination that the gate for the premises of the Appellant was fixed in the year 1984 and it was being used. The allegation of the Appellant that she does not have any other access to the house is not refuted. The inescapable conclusion is that at least from the year 1984, the Appellant is using that passage. 9. Before the trial Court, the proceedings have assumed at different dimension. The Respondent pleaded that the land covered by the passage is owned by him. To know the physical features thereof, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Appellant took an alternative plea that even if the land covered by the passage exclusively belongs to the Respondent, she has a right to have access to it since she was using the same for the past several decades. In this context, several issues were framed and the trial Court focused its attention to the question as to whether the Appellant has any right by way of prescription. In the course of discussion thereof, it arrived at a conclusion that the period for which the Appellant exercised the right of access to the passage fell short of two years for acquiring prescriptive right. On finding the answer to this came in negative, the trial Court felt that the suit deserves to be dismissed. The lower appellate Court virtually toed the same line. 10. A substantial question of law viz., whether in a suit for injunction simplicitor as regards the right to use a passage, the question of acquisition of prescriptive right is relevant; arises for consideration. 11. As observed in the preceded paragraphs, the suit was the one for injunction simplicitor. The lower appellate Court virtually toed the same line. 10. A substantial question of law viz., whether in a suit for injunction simplicitor as regards the right to use a passage, the question of acquisition of prescriptive right is relevant; arises for consideration. 11. As observed in the preceded paragraphs, the suit was the one for injunction simplicitor. The only issue to be decided was as to whether the Appellant was exercising such a right, before the suit came to be filed. The evidence discloses that she was using the passage from 1984 onwards. It was not even alleged that there was any interruption in exercise of that right before the suit was filed. These facts were sufficient for granting decree prayed for by the Appellant. In case, the Respondent wanted to claim the passage as his exclusive one and on that basis, to prevent the Appellant from using it, it was open to him to file a suit for such relief viz., declaration and injunction. The plea of as to prescriptive right, if any, raised by the Respondent, in such an event, could certainly have been considered. Another occasion would have been where the Appellant herself wanted a declaratory relief. Since no such reliefs were claimed, the trial Court was not at all justified in adverting that question. 12. Therefore, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgments rendered by the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S. No. 946 of 2002 is decreed as prayed for. It is however, left open to the Respondent to seek a relief of declaration as to his exclusive right over the passage in question and for consequential reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs.