JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant Musstt. Naju Begum Choudhury was the Defendant No. 1 in the Title Suit so preferred by the respondents in T.S. No. 105/1988. The aforesaid Suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs and on an appeal preferred against the Judgment & Decree, the same was upheld by the appellate Court in T.A. 52/1993 and against the concurrent findings, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. The brief case of the respondent, as plaintiff, is that there was a path of 6 cubits in breadth and length of Dags No. 111, 112, 113 of 2nd RS Patta 59 of Mauza Ambikapur which is described in the Schedule B of the plaint. The said land was in existence since 02.06.1980 when the land of Patta No. 89 was amicably partitioned among the heirs of late Nasha Mia Choudhury by registered Deed No. 2672 dated 02.06.1980 for common use of path by co-pattadars. Since then, the said path was used by co-pattadars and neighbours without any interruption from any corner. The Defendant No. 1 who was co-sharer as well as also purchaser of some land of the said patta, got possession over the land in the year 1983 and she made construction of House on the aforesaid land and thereby created obstruction in the peaceful use of path by the plaintiff and others. Though the obstruction was removed at the intervention of Executive Magistrate followed by an apusnama dated 12.06.1987 but again on 19.05.1988, the Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 had put obstruction by putting some bamboo fencing and refused to remove the obstruction inspite of requests made by the plaintiffs. It is stated that the aforesaid road was the only approach for ingress and outgress from their homestead and they are in very difficult position from getting out, from their houses and they have to go out of their home over the paddy field of others which again submerged in rainy season. It is stated that the aforesaid road was the only approach for ingress and outgress from their homestead and they are in very difficult position from getting out, from their houses and they have to go out of their home over the paddy field of others which again submerged in rainy season. It is, therefore, the respondents plaintiffs filed the title suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired the right of user over the land as path and for declaration that Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have no right, whatsoever, in any way, to obstruct the plaintiff from using the path and for a permanent mandatory injunction directing the Defendants No. 1 to 3, to remove all sort of obstructions. 4. Only the Defendant No.1 (appellant, herein) contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint as usual. It has been specifically stated that said Nasha Mia Choudhury was the owner of 5B 4K 11Ch of land pertaining to the suit land bearing Dag No. 111, 112, and 113, of Patta No. EP-59. After the death of Nasha Mia Choudhury, the suit land was partitioned amongst the legal heirs, i.e. 9 sons and 10 daughters by a registered Deed of Partition mentioning a path upto the share of sons only keeping the lands of daughters measuring about 2B 1K 2Ch in ejmali out of which, Defendant No. 1 got 4k 1ch 16g in her name. That apart, she also purchased some land from the co-sharers in the suit patta and became the owner and possession of 14K 7Ch and 12g in the aforesaid Dag. 5. It is further stated that as the aforesaid Deed of Partition and her purchased Deed, are silent about the path in between share of answering defendants and Sofia Begum, the present occupier of the land but in order to create a path, a case under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed in the Court of Executive Magistrate on 18.02.1988 concealing the facts. Accordingly, it is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Upon the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: (i). Is there any cause of action for the Suit? (ii). Is the Suit maintainable in its present form and manner? (iii). Is the Suit barred by limitation? Accordingly, it is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Upon the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: (i). Is there any cause of action for the Suit? (ii). Is the Suit maintainable in its present form and manner? (iii). Is the Suit barred by limitation? (iv) Is the Suit is properly valued and stamped? (v) Whether the Suit is bad for defect for the parties? (vi) Whether the Defendant No. 1 inherited a share as legal heir from the heir of Nasha Mia Choudhury and also became owner by way of purchase from other co-sharers? (vii) Whether there was mentioned any path in the Deed of Partition dated 30.05.1980 passing through the land of Defendant? (viii) To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled to? 7. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by both parties and hearing the submissions of learned counsel of both parties, decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. Against the said Judgment & Decree, an appeal was preferred by the present appellant, and learned appellate Court/Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 2, set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondent, as appellant, filed a second appeal No. 75/1996 before this Court and vide its judgment dated 02.08.2002, the aforesaid judgment & decree of the appellate Court was set aside and the case was remanded back in the said appellate Court for a fresh judgment after appreciation of materials on record in the light of the observation made in the said judgment. Accordingly, appeal was heard and by its order dated 11.06.2003, the appellate court affirmed the judgment & decree so passed by the learned trial Court by dismissing the appeal so preferred by the present appellant. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid findings of both forums, the present second appeal has been preferred. 8. Following substantial question of law was formulated while admitting the second appeal: (1) Whether the Decree passed by the learned Court below do not conform to the decisions made in the issues? 9. The matters on record of both the LCRs pertaining to Title Suit No. 105/1998 dated 28.07.1993 and Title Appeal No. 52/1993 dated 11.06.2003, are gone through. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. 9. The matters on record of both the LCRs pertaining to Title Suit No. 105/1998 dated 28.07.1993 and Title Appeal No. 52/1993 dated 11.06.2003, are gone through. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Majumdar, that in view of the Deed of Partition (Family Settlement) dated 02.06.1980, there was no mention of path as has been alleged by the respondents. In the aforesaid Deed of Partition, the sons of Nasha Mia Choudhury created a path of 6 cubits breadth from kathal road up to the share of Monohar Ali and beyond that land was kept as ejmali as share of all daughters of Nasha Mia Choudhury. The appellant/defendant got her 4K 1Ch 16 Gundas share adjacent to the southern plot of Monohar Ali and Munwara Begum, another daughter of Nasha Mia Choudhury got the southern plot of land and said Manwara sold her ejmali share to Sahab Uddin Choudhury. Thereafter, the appellant purchased the share of land from Salim Choudhury and Sahab Uddin, sons of Nasha Mia Choudhury and the appellant got her land mutated accordingly and these are the facts that have been mentioned in the written statement of appellant side. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has made a submission that there is a clear admission in the Deed of Partition/Ext. 1 and Ext. E, that the time of execution of the said Document, Nasha Mia Choudhury created a path of 6 cubits breadth from Kathal road upto the share of Manohar Ali and beyond that, land was kept as ejmali as shares of all daughters of Nasha Mia Choudhury. So from such clear admission, it can be held that there was a 6 cubits path in the aforesaid land upto the share of sons of Nasha Mia Choudhury, in the year 1980. But as the share of daughters were not separated, so the question of mentioning of path up to their shares, did not arise at that time but from Ext. F, G and H, i.e. the Sale Deed executed in the year 1982 and 1983 by which the appellant has purchased the land from the share of her brothers i.e. sons of Nasha Mia Choudhury, it can be presumed that the shares of daughters were separated after 1980. F, G and H, i.e. the Sale Deed executed in the year 1982 and 1983 by which the appellant has purchased the land from the share of her brothers i.e. sons of Nasha Mia Choudhury, it can be presumed that the shares of daughters were separated after 1980. As soon as the shares of daughters were separated, automatically, the creation of path would be there. The appellant/Defendant No. 1, in her cross-examination has admitted that there was no written partition among the sisters but brothers divided the shares among the sisters. Due to subsequent division of shares of daughters, the same fact of creation of road over the daughters lands was not there in the Deed of Partition. 11. By referring to the report of Amin Commission, submitted by Survey Commissioner under XXVI Rule 10 of CPC, it has been submitted that the said undisputed report is enough to support the case of the respondents about the existence of path as claimed by the plaintiffs respondents. 12. A decision reported in 1993 (2) GLR 445, and decision reported in 2014 (2) GLT 602 have been referred to, wherein it has been held that such report of the Commission is a part of the record and the Court can rely upon such report having regard to the other evidence on record. It has been shown that, the Defendant No. 1 i.e. the appellant while submitting objection in the injunction petition has admitted about compromise about the use of the path and the learned trial Court granted injunction in favour of the respondents and on being challenged before the High Court, and as per order of this Court, obstruction from the path was removed which will go to show that since the time of trial, the suit path was used by the respondents. 13. Further, it has been submitted that in view of the admission by the appellant herself that she purchased the land of her brothers Sahab uddin, Salim Uddin and Monohar Ali by registered Sale Deed, where there is a mention of 6 cubit path. So such path existed up to share of the brothers, automatically devolves upon the Defendant No. 1 as per her own admission. It has also been submitted that the facts admitted need not to be proved and the implied admission in the written statement cannot be withdrawn (ref. AIR 2007 GAU 20 ). 14. So such path existed up to share of the brothers, automatically devolves upon the Defendant No. 1 as per her own admission. It has also been submitted that the facts admitted need not to be proved and the implied admission in the written statement cannot be withdrawn (ref. AIR 2007 GAU 20 ). 14. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have considered the entire matters on record. From the bone of contention so raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that they heavily only relied upon the Deed of Partition so executed in the year 1980 to press upon the fact that there cannot be any path up to the share of sisters and the respondents cannot claim the use of path basing on easementary right which is not prevalent in Assam nor it is a case of respondent that they have acquired any prescriptive right over the suit land by the length of their use. After giving due consideration to the submissions made above, along with the admitted fact that the appellant purchased the land of his brothers upto which the path was devolved, subsequent to the Deed of Partition, there cannot be any further argument that the land of the sisters remained ejmali. In view of the admission of the appellant that she mutated her name on her shares of land as well as land so purchased from her brothers, the learned trial Court in its findings in Issue No. vii, has clearly dealt with the above aspect wherein it has been held that from oral testimonies of witnesses as well as reading of Ext. 1, it is an admitted position that the shares of daughters were kept in a southern part of the patta but in fact the daughters enjoyed their specific shares on amicable partition. It can be rightly presumed that the shares of daughters even if got partitioned, from Ext. 2, a Sale Deed executed by a coheir namely Anuwara Begum in favour of plaintiff No. 1, in respect of her share in the suit patta. In Ext. 2, there is a mention of path in the eastern side measuring 6 cubit in breadth, and the same was confirmed by executing ekrarnama/ Ext. 4 by said Anwara Begum. 15. There is an elaborate discussion and findings by the learned trial Court that in the Sale Deed, Ext. In Ext. 2, there is a mention of path in the eastern side measuring 6 cubit in breadth, and the same was confirmed by executing ekrarnama/ Ext. 4 by said Anwara Begum. 15. There is an elaborate discussion and findings by the learned trial Court that in the Sale Deed, Ext. F, G & H, the documents filed by the Defendant No. 1 (appellant, herein), has very clear mention of 6 cubit path from the eastern side. Similarly, the share of Manuwara Begum falls to next southern plot of answering Defendant No. 1, (appellant) which necessarily suggest if there is any path up to the share of Manuwara Begum, south next to Defendant No. 1, who happens to be a co-heir with others, might there be a path over the share of the purchased land next of Defendant No. 1. It is to be noted that though the defendant has herself submitted such Sale Deed but in her testimony she has stated that those documents are created in collusion just to create a path over the land. The learned trial Court while discussing the issue No. VII, has rightly came to a finding that since such Sale Deed, Ext. G H & F, are produced in the form of documentary evidence, hence, the oral testimony of DW-1 cannot supersede the value of those documents. Thus from the appreciation of evidences, on record, the learned trial Court held that there is an existing path extending up to the shares of brothers including the Defendant No. 1 (appellant), and the respondents failed to produce better evidence. 16. That apart, the evidence before the learned trial Court reveals that there is a path passing through the entire patta extending from north to south and the said fact is also supported by the memorandum of local inspection which was held for the purpose of appreciating the evidence. The said report of Commissioner who made a sketch map the suit land has clearly reveals that there is a path in the suit Dags extending from north to south with an obstruction made in the middle of the land by Defendant No. 1. 17. The said report of Commissioner who made a sketch map the suit land has clearly reveals that there is a path in the suit Dags extending from north to south with an obstruction made in the middle of the land by Defendant No. 1. 17. Such an inspection report which was made at the instance of the appellant which was never challenged by the appellant, cannot be discarded by the Court and has rightly been taken into account which apparently lent support to the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. It is also noted that the other defendants in Title Suit who were co-sharers as well as brothers of the appellant who sold some of their share to appellant, have not come forward to support the appellant. 18. In a case reported in 1993 2 GLR 445, Silchar Municipal Board Silchar v. Eastern Tea Estate Ltd., which is followed by subsequent decision in 2014 (2) GLT 602 (Satipada Saha and another vs Sadhana Ray and ors, it can be held that the report of Commissioner is a piece of evidence which ultimately has to be considered along with the other evidence before the Court can come to a conclusion over the disputed issue. It is for the Court ultimately to rely or refrain from relying upon the Commissioner’s report for the purpose of granting a decree to a plaintiff or dismiss the suit. It is further held that it is open to the party to point out the defects, shortcomings and the work done by the Commissioner or the procedure adopted by the Commissioner or the observation made by him, etc., and the Court is bound to hear such objections preferred against such reports. In the given case, admittedly, the appellant never raised any objection against the Commissioner’s report and the learned court has found the report reliable which has supported the evidence on record. Such a specific finding is enough to negate the story projected by the defendant appellant that there was no path as such in existence as stated by the plaintiffs/respondents. 19. Further, the evidence on record reveals that the Ext. F the Sale Deed exhibited by Manuwara Begum, a co-heir, in favour of another co-heir Sahab Uddin in respect of her share, and subsequently, the said Sahab Uddin sold the said land to the answering defendant vide Ext. 19. Further, the evidence on record reveals that the Ext. F the Sale Deed exhibited by Manuwara Begum, a co-heir, in favour of another co-heir Sahab Uddin in respect of her share, and subsequently, the said Sahab Uddin sold the said land to the answering defendant vide Ext. G. There is a clear mention about the path on the eastern side of the share of Manwara and as soon as defendant purchased the said land, the said path devolves in the property of Defendant No. 1 and such a path is commonly used by all co-sharers and other inhabitants of the locality, cannot be claimed by the Defendant No. 1 as her property. The evidence as well as Commissioner’s report clearly reveals that Defendant No. 1/appellant created obstruction over the suit path which is the only ingress and outgress to the main road. 20. In view of above, plea of the appellant that no such path is mentioned in Ext. 1 upto the shares of the daughters, cannot be maintained as appellant has purchased the shares of the brothers by virtue of Sale Deed and all these indicates that their shares were also partitioned to specific shares. Such a verbal testimony of the appellant which is denied by her own documents and Commissioner’s report, is devoid of merit. It is to be noted that the learned trial Court has also come to a specific finding while discussing the Issue No. vii that the plaintiffs are the co-heirs, and copattadars and they are vendees and shares of the daughters are kept in the backside of the land, blocking their shares by male heirs, without keeping any path to ingress and outgress to their respective shares, it will result hindrance of entrance to their lands and it is against the rules of natural justice. 21. Learned trial Court has also discussed all other issues in proper perspective of fact and laws and the same have been duly confirmed by the appellate Court on appreciation and as such, no any illegalities and irregularities are found in the discussion, in any of those issues. It also appears that the appellant has only raised her grievances as against the findings in Issue No. vii which is the key issue to decide the fate of the case, at hand. 22. It also appears that the appellant has only raised her grievances as against the findings in Issue No. vii which is the key issue to decide the fate of the case, at hand. 22. After a careful scrutiny of the matter on record, it is found that the learned trial Court has rightly decided the said Issue No. vii in favour of the plaintiff. The plea of the appellant that the respondents/plaintiffs cannot raise the issue of prescription for using the land for years together so as to claim easementory right over the suit path is not at all maintainable where the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs are not in the nature of prescription but using of the path as the co-sharers. Equally, the submission that the case is not maintainable under the specific relief act, nor mandatory injunction can be made by the Court against the co-sharers is also cannot be legally sustainable. Here is the case when the Suit is filed by co-pattadars for using of path with consequential relief to restrain the appellant from creating such obstruction. 23. In this context, let us discuss about the relevant provision of law. Sections 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act which lays down the law relating to declaratory decree of a right which is doubtful or which requires to be cleared. The object of declaratory decree is to prevent future litigations by removing the existing cause of controversy. In other words, if a doubt is cast upon the legal character of plaintiff, he is entitled to seek aid of the Court to dispel it. It is essential for a clause under Section 34 that the plaintiff must be entitle to any legal character, or to any right to property. Legal character is a positive one recognized by law and a person’s legal character is made up of attributes which law attaches to him in his individual or personal capacity and it synonymous with the word status. Grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the provision of the Act is discretionary. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. While exercising such discretionary power, the Court must keep in its mind the well-settled principles of justice and fair play and the discretion would be exercise, keeping in view the ends of justice since justice is the hallmark and it cannot be administered in vacuum. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. While exercising such discretionary power, the Court must keep in its mind the well-settled principles of justice and fair play and the discretion would be exercise, keeping in view the ends of justice since justice is the hallmark and it cannot be administered in vacuum. Before granting or refusing to grant relief of declaration or injunction, the Court must weigh pros and cons, in each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective and exercise discretion with circumspection to further the ends of justice. 24. In the given case, both the learned Courts have considered all the facts and circumstances and other perspective of law as well as facts and came to a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to such declaration as has been prayed for the use of the path as common path for their ingress and outgress to the main road. Denial of the appellant to allow the respondents to use such common path which is very much in existence, is apparently a denial of justice to the respondents who are large in nos. and have no other access for reaching the main road. 25. In such similar scenario, the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2011 MADRAS 57, Thukkaram v. Shanthi Varadharanjan & anr., it has been held that a suit under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration or injunction over a dispute as to the right over common pathway, can be allowed. It has been further held that the Defendant has no right to put any wall, obstructing ingress and egress of the plaintiff, who is entitled to enjoy his right over common pathway but also to relief of permanent injunction. 26. The scope and ambit of second appeal is well-settled. The basic law pertaining to the second appeal is that if no substantial question of law has emerged, the findings of the first appellate court or the concurrent findings of the courts below on the facts, cannot be interfered in the second appeal. The concurrent findings of the fact, however, erroneous it may be, cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of powers under these sections. The substantial question has to be distinguished from a simple question of law as has been held in Apex Court in AIR 2006 SC 2172 reported in Sugane v. Rameshwar Das. The concurrent findings of the fact, however, erroneous it may be, cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of powers under these sections. The substantial question has to be distinguished from a simple question of law as has been held in Apex Court in AIR 2006 SC 2172 reported in Sugane v. Rameshwar Das. The High Court cannot substitute its own opinion of that of first appellate Court unless it finds that conclusion drawn by the lower Court were erroneous being: (i) Contrary to mandatory provisions of applicable law. (ii) Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court. (iii) Based upon inadmissible evidence or no evidence. 27. In the instant case, as has been discussed above, both the Courts below have fully appreciated all the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and have arrived at a concurrent finding and the same cannot be interfered with, in the second appeal. No substantial question of law emerges in this case to address and to interfere with, by way of second appeal. 28. In view of all above, the appeal stands dismissed. Return the LCRs forthwith.