Judgment : This appeal is by the defendant, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the finding of the Court below that the suit passage is common passage is without any basis ?” 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that he is the owner of House No. 820 whereas the defendant is the owner of House No. 821. It was further pleaded that another House No. 822 is situate adjacent to the house of the plaintiff and in front of their houses, there is a common passage of 8 feet in width which is being used by the plaintiff for several years. However, the defendant raised construction of latrine as well as wall on the passage in dispute and has deprived the plaintiff of his right to use the passage in question. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration, permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction seeking removal of construction raised by the defendant on the passage in question. 3. The defendant filed the written statement in which inter-aliait was pleaded that the passage in question infact belongs to the defendant which is 4 feet in width. The passage in question is not the common passage and the door of the house of the plaintiff opens on the main road, thus, he has an alternative way to ingress and egress to his house. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was involved in an illegal activities therefore, the defendant had constructed the boundary on the passage which belongs to the defendant. 4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 inter-alia held that the passage in question is the common passage which is being used by the plaintiff for several years. It was further held that the passage in question is the only way of access to plaintiff's house which has been obstructed by the defendant by raising construction thereon. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The aforesaid decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the Courts below that the passage in question is the common passage, is perverse. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The aforesaid decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the Courts below that the passage in question is the common passage, is perverse. There is no iota of material on record to show that the plaintiff is either the owner of the passage in dispute or has acquired easementary right over the same. While inviting the attention of this Court to the sale-deed Ex.P/7, executed in favour of the plaintiff, it is submitted that the sale-deed does not show that plaintiff is the owner of the passage in dispute. While referring to the evidence of the plaintiff who has been examined as PW-1 it was submitted that the plaintiff in his evidence has admitted that the width of the passage is 4 feet 6 inches and two passages are available to the plaintiff to approach his house. It is also submitted that the plaintiff in paragraph-15 of his evidence has admitted that the latrine on the passage in dispute was constructed by the defendant fifteen years ago. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not acquired easementary right over the passage in dispute, therefore, Courts below committed an error of law in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent while inviting the attention of this Court to documents Exhibit P/4, P/5 and P/6 submitted that in the previous suit the defendant has admitted the existence of common passage and therefore, the defendant is estopped from contending that the passage in question is not the common passage. It is also submitted that both the Courts below on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record have recorded a finding that the passage in dispute is the common passage which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 4 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) defines the expression easement as follows : “An easement is right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something or to S.A. No.898/2001 prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of, certain other land not his own.” Thus, easement is privilege/right which a person possesses over the land which is not his own. Section 15 of the Act provides that where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement and as of right, without interruption and for twenty years, such easement shall be absolute. An easement of necessity cannot be granted on the ground of convenience or advantage but can be granted on the ground of absolute necessity. Where an alternative way is available, no easement of necessity arises in such case since element of absolute necessity is absent. 8. It is well settled in law that if the finding of fact is perverse or the same has been reached in ignorance of the material available on record or by misreading of the evidence on record, it is open to interference in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [See : Deenanath Vs. Pooranlal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 , Neelaknatan and Others Vs. Mallika Begum, (2002) 2 SCC 440 , Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane Vs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 404 , Krishna Mohan Kulalias Nani Charan Kuland Another Vs. Pratina Maity and Others, (2004) 9 SCC 468, Arumaraj Devadhas Vs. K. Sundaram Nadar, (2009) 17 SCC 467 ]. 9. In the instant case, in paragraph-5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the common passage of 8 feet in width is situate in front of the houses of the plaintiff as well as the defendant is being used by them. However, in paragraph-3 of his evidence, the plaintiff who has been examined as PW-1 has stated that width of the passage is 4 feet 6 inches. However, in paragraph-3 of his evidence, the plaintiff who has been examined as PW-1 has stated that width of the passage is 4 feet 6 inches. In paragraph-15, he has further admitted that he has not adduced any evidence to show that the passage in dispute is situate on the land which belongs to Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, and that the latrine was constructed by the defendant on the passage in dispute 15 years ago. In paragraph-13 of his evidence, the plaintiff has further admitted that in the application Ex.P/8 which was submitted to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur contains recital that there are two approach roads to the house of the plaintiff. The Commissioner was also appointed by the Court to ascertain the existence of the passage. From the report submitted by the Commissioner, it is evident that an alternative way is available to the plaintiff to approach his house apart from the passage in dispute which was not being used by him. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be granted easement of necessity as an alternative passage is available to him. It is also pertinent to mention here that from perusal of paragraph-1 of the plaint (Ex.P/6) in previous civil suit it is evident that the defendant had pleaded that a passage of 4 ft is situate on the north-south eastern side of the house of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the passage referred to in previous suit is the same passage which is involved in the present suit. The Courts below have misread the Commissioner's report and have omitted to consider the aforesaid material evidence on record which renders the finding of the Courts below with regard to the passage in question being common, perverse. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in affirmative. 10. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court is set aside and the claim of the plaintiff is dismissed. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.