JUDGMENT 1. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.6.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Achalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2002 preferred by the original defendant in the suit. The appeal was allowed. The appeal arose from the judgment and order dt.10.12.2001 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.103 of 1998 by the Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Achalpur. The suit for declaration and injunction was decreed by the trial Court with costs. The trial Court had declared the suit way shown by alphabets 'ABCD' in the plaint map as easementary way of plaintiff to approach his field and ordered that the defendant had no right to obstruct the easementary way and directed the defendant to remove all the obstructions created by him in the suit way and restrained the defendant from causing obstruction in the user of the suit way by the plaintiff. It was also ordered that the plaint map (Exh.86) in the evidence shall form part of the decree. 3. Briefly stated the facts appear from the record as under: That the plaintiff claims to be owner and possessor of field bearing S.No.27/3 (Gat No.77) admeasuring 1 H, 49 R situated at village Nimkheda, Tq. Achalpur. The plaintiff became owner of the suit field in the year 1979 after he purchased the field. According to the plaintiff, defendant had possessed land bearing Survey No.29 (Gat No.69) admeasuring about 1 H, 23 R adjacent to the plaintiff's field on western side as indicated in the plaint map. The plaintiff claimed user of the suit way as shown in the map since beginning without any obstruction and it was the only approach way to his field. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, in the month of August 1998, had planted 18 orange saplings to create obstruction in the user of the suit way and to close the user of suit way. Thus, it is the case of the plaintiff that it became impossible for him to use the suit way so as to carry his bullockcart, agricultural implements etc. to his field. Therefore, declaration was sought in respect of user of the suit way and also that the defendant had no right to obstruct user of the suit way. Thus, it is the case of the plaintiff that it became impossible for him to use the suit way so as to carry his bullockcart, agricultural implements etc. to his field. Therefore, declaration was sought in respect of user of the suit way and also that the defendant had no right to obstruct user of the suit way. A prayer was also made for consequent mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction created in the suit way. 4. The defendant in the trial Court had resisted the suit on the ground that he is in possession of the land bearing Survey No.29. The defendant had admitted that Wadura-Salepur Government road is adjacent to his field from northern side as shown in the plaint map, but denied user of the suit way by the plaintiff or his predecessor before the registered Sale deed dt. 14.5.1987 in respect of the land bearing old Survey No.29. It appears that the trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties including the documentary evidence and report from the Commissioner, found that the plaintiff had proved easementary right of way through the side 'EFGH' indicated in the plaint map and that the defendant caused obstruction to the user of the right of way to the plaintiff. Thus, the Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and injunction, as prayed for. According to the learned trial Judge, the map produced by the plaintiff in respect of the land bearing old Survey No.29 was drawn by Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Achalpur (Exh.74). Thus, considering the evidence in the form of document as well as oral evidence led before the Court in the light of pleadings, the trial Court was pleased to pass decree in the suit, as prayed for. The grievance of the appellant is that the first Appellate Court without any justification reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court in respect of user of the right of way for the plaintiff to approach his field by taking his bullockcart, agricultural utensils, implements. According to the learned first Appellate Court, the trial Court had not properly appreciated the material on record and reached to a wrong conclusion. The learned first Appellate Judge relied upon the map drawn by one Mr. R.K. Deshpande appointed as the Commissioner and on the ground that Mr. According to the learned first Appellate Court, the trial Court had not properly appreciated the material on record and reached to a wrong conclusion. The learned first Appellate Judge relied upon the map drawn by one Mr. R.K. Deshpande appointed as the Commissioner and on the ground that Mr. Deshpande in Exh.45 did not observe existence of way in dispute went on to make observations ignoring evidence led on record and brushed aside the findings recorded by the trial Court so as to direct dismissal of the suit. 5. This appeal was admitted on 5.4.2007 upon following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellant without considering the fact that the appellant had pleaded that he had acquired the easementary right by prescription and not merely by necessity? I answer the following substantial question of law in the negative for the following reasons. 6. Perusal of the plaint in Regular Civil No.103 of 1998 clearly reveals that the plaintiff is owner of the land bearing Survey No.27/3 (Gat No.77), admeasuring 1 H, 49 R at village Nimkheda, Tq. Achalpur. The plaintiff became owner in the year 1979 and on west side of the plaintiff's field, the defendant claimed possession of field bearing Survey No.29 (Gat No.69), admeasuring 1 H, 23 R in Class II occupancy. According to the plaintiff, the field claimed by the defendant was formerly a gaothan (hollow land) allotted by the Government to Maroti Sheti Wadar for cultivation. After the death of said Maroti, the defendant purchased the field from Ashok Maroti Wadar. Thus, according to the plaintiff, there was a Government village road from Salepur to Wadura and the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title used to approach the field via Salepur road upto the point EA and then turning to the south by the side of nali adjoining the eastern boundary of defendant's field by EFGH road upto the point GH and then used to enter in the plaintiff's field. Thus, 'EFGH' way was 8 ft. broad as indicated by green colour in the map annexed with the plaint. It is used to be the way for the plaintiff for carrying his agricultural implements and taking bullockcart and labourers for cultivation and bringing home the produce. Thus, 'EFGH' way was 8 ft. broad as indicated by green colour in the map annexed with the plaint. It is used to be the way for the plaintiff for carrying his agricultural implements and taking bullockcart and labourers for cultivation and bringing home the produce. This right of way was claimed by the plaintiff without interruption peacefully and as of right by prescription and as of necessity. Therefore, it was the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court that the defendant had no right to obstruct the approach way of the plaintiff to and fro the field owned and possessed by the plaintiff. When the defendant, despite registered notice dt.19.9.1998 served by the plaintiff, failed to remove obstacles in the form of new plantation of orange saplings, the plaintiff prayed for declaration about the way indicated by green colour with alphabets 'EFGH' in the plaint map as approach way to the plaintiff's field indicated as ABCD in the plaint map seeking declaration that the defendant had no right to obstruct the plaintiff in using way to approach his field. 7. It appears that the trial Court had considered the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff along with the map. The plaintiff in his deposition had clearly deposed that there was gaothan in the same land which the defendant is claiming as his land. According to the deposition by the plaintiff, the defendant had planted 18 saplings of orange trees on 16.8.1998 so as to prevent the plaintiff from using the way for approaching plaintiff's field. The deposition of the plaintiff was also supported by the witness Ashok Mahadeo Kurade regarding right of way claimed by the plaintiff and unavailability of any alternate way for the plaintiff and also by witnesses Bapurao Pund and Sitaram Lokhande, Marotirao Dhundane, Sahebrao Shelke. While, as against the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant has examined himself and one Rajaram Kathe, Bapurao Raut and Ramkrushna Shahastrabudhe. 8. It also appears that, in the trial Court, specific statement under signature of the defendant was made under praecipe dt.18.12.1999 that the defendant will not obstruct the plaintiff till decision of the suit. The suit was instituted after the notice dt.19.9.98 was issued from the plaintiff to the defendant regarding removal of obstruction by 18 orange saplings. 8. It also appears that, in the trial Court, specific statement under signature of the defendant was made under praecipe dt.18.12.1999 that the defendant will not obstruct the plaintiff till decision of the suit. The suit was instituted after the notice dt.19.9.98 was issued from the plaintiff to the defendant regarding removal of obstruction by 18 orange saplings. Thus, looking into the evidence on record and the plaint map, the trial Court had passed decree in favour of the plaintiff, as prayed for. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had acquired easementary right in view of Section 15 of the Easements Act by prescription of continued interrupted user. Under these circumstances, when plaint map was drawn and produced on record with explanatory footnotes indicating user of the right of way and obstruction sought to be created, the trial Court was justified to consider the evidence in detail so as to pass decree, as prayed for. 9. On the other hand, the learned first Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Achalpur was swayed way by the fact that the Commissioner Mr. Deshpande who drew the map (Exh.45) had not observed existence of way in dispute. Considering the case of the plaintiff himself that obstruction was created by the defendant, the fact that Mr.Deshpande did not observe existence of way in dispute, could not have been relied upon so as to dismiss the suit. The approach of the learned first Appellate Judge to ignore the evidence on record in the light of plaint map was perverse. The findings of the trial Court could not have been brushed aside lightly without adverting to the evidence led on record for proving the right of way. It must be borne in mind that the trial Judge had benefit to see witnesses deposing as to facts in the trial Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the ruling in the case of Manikrao Narayanrao Bhoge and Others vs. Maheshkumar s/o. Bansilal Vyas and another reported in 2011 (5) Mh.L.J. 345 to argue that Sections 13 and 15 of the Easements Act need to be read together. Section 13 of the Easements Act provides for easement of necessity and quasieasement, while Section 15 of the Act provides for easement by prescription which are independent provisions. Section 13 of the Easements Act provides for easement of necessity and quasieasement, while Section 15 of the Act provides for easement by prescription which are independent provisions. If the parties are legally entitled to exercise easementary right under both the provisions, it is open for them to do so. Thus, when the plaintiff produced evidence in the present case in the trial Court regarding his right of way enjoyed by him and his predecessor in respect of the approach way to the suit land for carrying agricultural implements, bullockcarts etc. and when the trial Court found the evidence sufficient so as to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff after recording conclusion that the defendant had obstructed right of way pleaded and proved by the plaintiff, the first Appellate Court was unnecessarily swayed away by argument on behalf of the defendant to deny legal right declared by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of prescriptive easementary right. Under these circumstances, it appears that even in the case of Manikrao Narayanrao Bhoge and Others, this Court had set aside the perverse conclusion recorded by the first Appellate Court and restored the judgment and order which was passed by the trial Court in that case. In the same manner, in this appeal also, I find that the first Appellate Court was unnecessarily swayed away by omission on the part of the Commissioner to make observations in his report. The first Appellate Court ignored voluminous evidence on record in the form of oral testimony as also documentary evidence, map annexed with the plaint and the admitted fact that the plaintiff is owner under registered sale deed and is required to approach the suit field by using the way which in the past was part of gaothan land. Therefore, considering the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court delivered with reference to evidence led by the parties, this Second Appeal needs to be allowed. The Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2002, dt.6.9.2006 is set aside accordingly and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.103 of 1998, dt.10.12.2001 is restored. No order as to costs.