JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed in RA No.38/2011, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur (for short, ‘Lower Appellate Court’) whereby the judgment and decree passed in OS No.52/1997 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hirekerur (for short, ‘Trial Court’) is confirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial court. 3. The facts in brief are that, the plaintiff preferred OS No.52/1997 against the defendants for declaration regarding his easementary rights of prescription and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is a Cart Track. It was averred by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the land in RS No.99/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas situated at Betakerur village and defendant No.1 is the owner of land in RS No.99/1+2+4/1 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas of Betkerur village and defendant No.2 is the owner of the land bearing RS No.99/1+2+4/2 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas of Betkerur village. Defendant No.2 is the father of defendant No.1 and they are living together as joint family members; the plaintiff was the tenant of land in RS No.99/3 for about 3940 years and therefore the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur conferred the occupancy rights in respect of the suit land of the plaintiff in his favour and thereby the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the same. It was contended that letter shown as “ABCD” is a cart track which is existing since 5060 years having width of 8 to 10 feet and the plaintiff is making use of the said track to reach his land in RS No.99/3 to take his bullock cart and other agricultural implements, peacefully, openly, continuously as of right of easement with the knowledge of the defendants since more than 3540 years and as such the plaintiff acquired a right over the said cart track by easement of prescription. On due service of summons, the defendants 1st appeared through their counsel and defendant filed written statement and 2nd defendant adopted the written 1st statement filed by the defendant. On due service of summons, the defendants 1st appeared through their counsel and defendant filed written statement and 2nd defendant adopted the written 1st statement filed by the defendant. In the written statement, the defendants disputed the existence of “ABCD” cart track and it was contended that there is a cattle shed at point A shown in the hand sketch map which was existing 2 to 3 years prior to filing of the suit, which was used for tethering cattles and adjoining to the cattle shed there is a fallow(waste) land of defendants. It was contended that the cart track in which easementary rights were claimed comes in the paddy beds of the lands of the defendants. The claim of right by way of easement of prescription of the plaintiff was refuted. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed. On appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court in RA No.38/2011, which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is in second appeal. 5. Learned counsel Sri. S.G. Kadadakatti, appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the Courts below failed to consider that the defendants in the written statement had admitted the existence of the water canal which is 10 feet in depth and passing towards the western side of the plaintiff’s land and then the road runs between Betakeruru and Arikatti and as such, the plaintiff was using cart track to reach his land, which was totally ignored. Hence, the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the admitted evidence on record and liable to be set aside. The Courts below proceeded on wrong footing that an alternative way is available to reach his land. The Courts below erred in not understanding the rights of the easement and also acquisition of right of easement by prescription, which has caused miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below, allowing the appeal on the ground that the substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant and perused the material on record. 7. Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below, allowing the appeal on the ground that the substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant and perused the material on record. 7. The Trial Court after extensively analyzing the material on record has observed that PW1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that “ABCD” cart track is not available to the plaintiff during rainy season. Similarly, during winter season, there is tiny crops in the lands of the defendants and therefore, he can move therein to reach his land. Further, PW1 in the cross-examination has stated that XXX Further, PW2 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that in the “ABCD” cart track, the defendants are growing crops during paddy season, the plaintiff cannot use the said cart track. It is the case of the defendants that there exists an alternative way for the plaintiff to reach his land as per “EFGH” road shown in the hand sketch map of the defendants. This has been admitted by the plaintiff in the course of his cross-examination. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argued that this road marked as “EFGH” cannot be used during rainy season, as there will be water in the water canal, but same would be the faith even in respect of the alleged “ABCD” cart track, which is situated in the lands of the defendants as admitted by PW1. Considering these aspects, the Trial Court has held that no cogent evidence was placed by the plaintiff to prove that he had acquired the right over “ABCD” cart track in the lands of the defendants by easement of prescription and accordingly, dismissed the suit. 9. The lower appellate Court after elaborately considering the material on record concurred with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The concurrent findings of the Courts below establishes that the plaintiff has an alternative way through “EFGH” area shown in the written statement hand sketch map to reach his land as admitted by him. The user of a private right of way to ripen into an easement, the essential ingredients must be peaceable, open, adverse and continuous use of way without any interruption with the knowledge of the true owner and for the full prescriptive period. The user of a private right of way to ripen into an easement, the essential ingredients must be peaceable, open, adverse and continuous use of way without any interruption with the knowledge of the true owner and for the full prescriptive period. The burden to prove all these facts casts upon the plaintiff. Except ipse dixit statements of PW1 and PW2, who are the interested witnesses, no other cogent evidence was placed on record to establish the factum of easementary right of the plaintiff by way of prescription. The admission made by these witnesses that defendants are growing paddy during rainy season demonstrates that the interruption caused by the dependants, negates the claim of the plaintiff regarding the rights of easementary by prescription in terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which provides for right of way without interruption for twenty years, which is apparently not established. 10. There is no irregularity or infirmity in the appreciation/re-appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below in deciding the issue of easementary right by prescription as claimed by the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, appeal stands dismissed.