JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2012 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.76 of 2009. 2.“Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration. According to the plaintiff, she is owner in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal and 1 marla bearing Khasra Nos. 1658/121 and 1650/121 situated in Tikka Daruhi, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. This land was purchased by her in the year 1993. Thereafter, she constructed a house on it. The government land is abutting this land bearing Khasra No. 1580/1245 and 1220. The plaintiff and her family members are using this path since long as a matter of right by easement of necessity. According to them, they have been using this path for the last more than 22 years without any objection and interruption from anyone. The said path is the only approach to the house of the plaintiff. There is no alternative path available to her. This path is not recorded in the revenue record. Respondent- defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “defendant No.2” for convenience sake) is bent upon to obstruct the use of the path by plaintiff and her family members. The plaintiff has made several requests to the Government to record the said part of land as path to her house, but nothing has been done so far. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the path measuring 35’x5’ in the attached site plan in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1580/1245 and 1220 of Tikka Daruhi, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur is being used by the plaintiff, her family members and others since long as a matter or right by easement of necessity for more than 22 years without any objection and interruption. The same is required to be recorded in the revenue record. Defendant No.2 has no right to cause any obstruction from using this path. 3. The suit was contested by respondent- defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.1’ for convenience sake). According to defendant No.1, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1993. Thereafter she had constructed the house. Defendant No.2 has no right to cause any obstruction from using this path. 3. The suit was contested by respondent- defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.1’ for convenience sake). According to defendant No.1, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1993. Thereafter she had constructed the house. She has no easementary right over the Government land. Previously, the nature of the land purchased by the plaintiff was ‘Barani-ek-fasli’, Kharetar and Banjar Kadim’. Defendant No.2 has also contested the suit. According to him, the plaintiff has no easmentary right through Khasra No. 1220 and 1243 etc. as this land is in cultivating possession of defendant No.2. According to him, there is a path to the house of the plaintiff through Khasra Nos. 1654/1221 and 1651/1221 etc. 4. Learned trial court framed the issues. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 16.12.2008. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. He dismissed the same on 1.9.20 12. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 5.Mr. Rahul Mahajan has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. 6. I have heard Mr. Rahul Mahajan and have gone through the judgments carefully. 7. PW- 1 Partap Chand has testified that he had started construction work in the year 1995-96 and the construction material was carried through the disputed land. The passage was existing prior to the purchasing of land. Defendant started threatening to obstruct the passage after the construction of the house. Khasra Nos. 1220 and 1245 are owned by the State and defendant No.2 is not in possession. The passage was allotted to Ram Dass and R.C. Sharma by the State. In his cross- examination, he has denied that an alternative passage is available. 8.PW-2 Ramesh Chand has deposed that plaintiff is using the passage since the time of construction. The other persons were also given passage from the Government land by the State. According to him, he started raising construction in the year 1990. The construction was completed in the year 1992. He was using the disputed passage for going to the land of the plaintiff. 9.PW-3 Sahanu Ram has deposed that he was taking the material to the land of the plaintiff through the disputed passage. According to him, he started raising construction in the year 1990. The construction was completed in the year 1992. He was using the disputed passage for going to the land of the plaintiff. 9.PW-3 Sahanu Ram has deposed that he was taking the material to the land of the plaintiff through the disputed passage. The house was constructed by the plaintiff prior to the recording of his statement. 10.DW- 1 Partap Singh, Patwari has deposed that the plaintiff had purchased the land in the year 1993. The mutation was attested on 31.5.1993 and 26.8.1993. The house was constructed after the purchase of land. No passage is existing on the land. He has further stated that the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1580/1245 and 1220 is owned and possessed by the Government, which is Banjar and Barani-do-fasli and there is no passage on this land. 11. DW-2 Bidhi Chand has deposed that there is no passage of plaintiff through the land bearing Khasra No. 1220. The land bearing Khasra No. 1220 has been purchased by him from Prem Chand. According to him, plaintiff has a passage from the backyard of Sh. R.K. Sharma. 12. DW-3 Karam Singh has supported the version of DW-2. DW-4 Sunil Kumar has proved the site plan Ex.DW-4/A. DW-5 Roshan Lal has deposed that earlier he was the owner of Khasra No. 1220 and he had sold this land to Sh. Bidhi Chand and Nirmala Devi in the year 2005. According to him, when he sold the land, there was no passage. The passage to the plaintiff is from another side. 13. Plaintiff has also proved Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW­1/F on record. Ex.PW- 1/A is the site plan and Ex.PW­1/B is the copy of Jamabandi pertaining to the land owned by the plaintiff. Ex.PW- 1/C is the copy of Jamabandi pertaining to Khasra Nos. 1580/1245 and 1220 through which the plaintiff is claiming the passage. Ex.PW-1/D is the copy of notice sent by the plaintiff to the State under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ex. PW- 1 / E is the copy of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW- 1 Partap Chand. Ex. PW- 1 / F is the copy of Aks Musabi. Ex.PW/G and Ex.PW/N are the copies of the revenue record. 14. Defendant No.2 has also proved documents Ex.D- 1 to Ex.D-5. Ex. PW- 1 / E is the copy of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW- 1 Partap Chand. Ex. PW- 1 / F is the copy of Aks Musabi. Ex.PW/G and Ex.PW/N are the copies of the revenue record. 14. Defendant No.2 has also proved documents Ex.D- 1 to Ex.D-5. Ex.D- 1 is the copy of Jamabandi pertaining to Khasra No. 1580/1245 showing the suit land in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Ex. D­2 is the copy of Aks. Ex.D-3 is the copy of mutation, which was attested regarding purchase of land by defendant No.2 and Nirmala Devi. Ex.D-4 is copy of mutation, which was sanctioned in favour of Prem Singh etc. Ex.D-5 is the copy of order dated 13.12.2005 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Settlement), Hamirpur. 15. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the passage was being used for more than 20 years through the land. She has not examined the previous owner of the land. The land has been purchased by her in the year 1993 and thereafter the construction was raised. The suit has been filed in the year 2002. In fact, the construction was started in the year 1994. The plaintiff has failed to prove that she was using the passage peacefully and openly as easement of right without interruption for 20 years. Since the plaintiff has not proved that she had been enjoying the passage for more than 20 years, she cannot claim the right of easement as per section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. It has come on record that an alternative path is available to the plaintiff. The defendants’ witnesses have also denied the passage to the plaintiff. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. 16. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.