M. Jeyapaul, J.— 1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove obstruction raised by them in front of the doors of the northern wall of the plaintiff's land. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the passage alleged to have been enjoyed by the defendant for about 60 long years was not established. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. But the First Appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff observed that there had been two old gates on the northern wall of the plot of the plaintiff to go through the property of the defendant and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to protect his easementary right. Ultimately the First Appellate Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction. 2. The following substantial questions of law in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on either side were formulated:- 1)Whether a relief for permanent injunction based on easementary right can be sought when no relief for declaration of easementary right was prayed for by the plaintiff. 2)Whether the First Appellate Court rendered a perverse finding without properly appreciating the evidence on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellantdefendant would vehemently submit that the First Appellate Court has completely misread the evidence on record. Even when the predecessor in interest was not examined by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff had got easementary right over the property of the defendant-respondent. He would also submit that without a prayer for declaration of easementary right the question of granting any relief for permanent injunction based thereupon would not arise. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would submit that though the plaintiff had not examined the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff, he had chosen to examine the other witnesses to establish the usage of the property of the defendant as a passage. It is his submission that the First Appellate court has rightly analysed the evidence and decreed the suit for permanent injunction. 5. I find that the First Appellate Court has committed a patent error in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction without substantial evidence to establish the right of passage claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had purchased his plot on 10.1.1979 under Ex. P1. 5. I find that the First Appellate Court has committed a patent error in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction without substantial evidence to establish the right of passage claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had purchased his plot on 10.1.1979 under Ex. P1. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff on 24.3.1984 itself. In other words, even if we assume that he had used the plot of the defendant as a passage, he would have used the same only for about five years. The predecessor-in-title is the most competent witness to speak to the alleged easementary right enjoyed by him for more than the statutory period. The non examination of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff goes to the very root of the case. 6. It is the admitted case that no super structure had been put up in the properties owned by the parties. The plaintiff had put up only a compound wall with a opening not only on its eastern side but on its northern side. The property of the defendant was admittedly a vacant portion. When the property is vacant there is no one to object to it. Everyone uses the vacant portion to have easy access to the main road. Such a person who has used for the sake of convenience a vacant plot, cannot at all claim easementary right over the vacant portion allegedly used by him. Even otherwise as held by the trial Court there is no substantial evidence to establish that the plaintiff and his predecessor in title have been using the passage for the past 60 long years. In my view, the First Appellate Court has not properly evaluated the evidence on record and ultimately it has rendered a perverse finding. 7. The plaintiff who seeks permanent injunction based on easementary right will have to necessary seek for declaration that he has got such a right. Unless such a right is established and declared plaintiff cannot seek for permanent injunction. In my view the First Appellate Court has lost sight of the above proposition of law. 8. To top it all, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant that, infact, the plaintiff, after filing the present suit, laid a suit for declaration of his easementary right but unfortunately he was non suited. 9. 8. To top it all, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant that, infact, the plaintiff, after filing the present suit, laid a suit for declaration of his easementary right but unfortunately he was non suited. 9. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are decided in favour of the defendant and consequently the appeal is allowed.