JUDGEMENT SURINDER SINGH, J (oral). The appeal is pending admission. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short the relevant facts giving rise to the present Regular Second Appeal can be stated thus. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant herein qua the suit land on the basis of his title alleging interference. The defendant-appellant has his agricultural land adjoining to the suit land and claims path through suit khasras to his adjoining fields, for the last about 50 years to which he was using it peacefully and without any interruption to be precise by easement of prescription. 4. The learned trial Court on appreciating the evidence did not find the existence of path over the suit land as alleged, as such, there was no question to acquire any right by way of prescription or otherwise, as such the suit was decreed. 5. The defendant laid the challenge to the judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, who on re-appreciating the evidence concurred with the issue-wise findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 6. The defendant though in the written statement has not clearly mentioned as to which right of easement had accrued to him, but the parties were at issue on the rights of easement by prescription. 7. Before a right of way can be acquired as an easement, it is necessary to prove that the enjoyment has been (1) actual, (2) open, (3) peaceable, (4) as of right (5) as an easement, (6) without interruption, and (7) for 20 years. Unless all these ingredients are proved, no right of easement can accrue to the dominant owner. 8. The defendant examined DW-3 Ved Prakash Patwari to prove the demarcation report Ext.DW1/B and Tatima Ext.DW1/A having been prepared in absence of the plaintiff to show the existence of path. Even he admitted that there was no mention of the path in the revenue record, but stated that there was a passage like foot path. He failed to prove the method of notice given to the plaintiff to be present on the spot. Even DW-2 Khimi Ram, Field Kanungo could not substantiate this fact by any supporting document, therefore, the demarcation report as well as Tatima both would loose its importance. 9. He failed to prove the method of notice given to the plaintiff to be present on the spot. Even DW-2 Khimi Ram, Field Kanungo could not substantiate this fact by any supporting document, therefore, the demarcation report as well as Tatima both would loose its importance. 9. Significantly, in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, no suggestion has been thrown to him that the alleged path was existing for the requisite period. In other words, the defendant has failed to prove the ingredients of the easement of prescription. Even the description of path given by DW-4 Bir Singh, and DW5 Ramesh are absolutely contradictory to each other. One says that it is 20-25 feet long and 2- 3 feet wide and another says it is 10 feet in length and 6 feet in width, crossing to the sides of the field of the plaintiff and Ses Ram defendant did not know about the width of the path, but reluctantly stated that it was 2 feet wide. Similar is the statement of DW7 Ashok Kumar. He has given different dimension about the place of existence of path. DW-8 Chuni Lal says its width was 3 feet and going through the side of the land of the plaintiff. The statement of none of the witnesses is coinciding with the contentions raised by the defendant. Its location is also changing from witness to witness. Even Patwari stated that it was a short­cut type of path on the spot. The witnesses of the defendant appear to be got-up witnesses. 10. As already stated above, the existence of path and the essential ingredients of easement of prescription are not proved. There are concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below based upon evidence on record, which cannot be interfered with as the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any misinterpretation or mis-appreciation of evidence, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine, so also the pending application(s), if any.