JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This second appeal is by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No. 34/2012, whereby the learned Civil Judge concurring with the findings of the learned Munsiff, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned Munsiff in T.S. No. 56/2006. 2. The respondent, as plaintiff, instituted T.S. No. 56/2006 for declaration of his right to use the suit path, which was the subject matter of the suit and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the land measuring 4 kathas 8 chataks covered by Dag No. 2085 of 2nd R.S. Patta No. 3, vide registered sale deed No. 4467 dated 21.12.1994. In the said sale deed, the vendor allowed the plaintiffs to use a 5 feet path running from east to west connecting the PWD Road, from the south west corner of the plaintiffs' land. Plaintiffs had been using the said path. In the meantime, the defendant No. 8 got a decree in T.S. No. 6/83 between the defendant No. 8 and other plaintiffs. The said suit (T.S. No. 6/83) was decreed in favour of the defendant No. 8 being co-sharer to the extent of his share in the suit land and the said decree in T.S. No. 6/1983 was put into execution. While executing the decree passed in T.S. No. 6/1983, a portion of the plaintiffs’ land including the path, which, the vendor of the plaintiffs allowed for use of the plaintiffs, was given to the defendant No. 8. Thereafter, the vendor of the plaintiffs by executing another deed transferred 4 chataks of land in order to compensate the plaintiff and also allowed the plaintiff to use a path over the land of the vendor of the plaintiffs, running from south-west corner of the plaintiffs' purchased land, to the PWD road and the plaintiffs had been using the path without interference from any quarter. The defendant No. 1 on behalf of Radha Seva Ashram purchased a plot of land measuring 4 kathas out of the dag No. 2085 subsequently from the defendant Nos. The defendant No. 1 on behalf of Radha Seva Ashram purchased a plot of land measuring 4 kathas out of the dag No. 2085 subsequently from the defendant Nos. 3 and 5, who were also the daughters of Jotindra Mohan Dey and the said land purchased by the defendant No. 1 for Radha Seva Ashram was on the northern side of the 5 feet path, which was being used by the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 constructed the Mandir abutting the boundary of the suit path without leaving any margin and extended the projection of the building over the path on the southern side and thereby created obstruction over the path, which was being used by the plaintiffs. The defendant also constructed a permanent gate on the path of the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right and title and injunction as indicated above. 3. The pleaded case of the defendants was that the vendor of the plaintiffs did not have any saleable right over the suit land in the year 2003, and as such, the sale deed Ext. 2 was incapable of conveying any right or title to the plaintiffs. Further case of the defendants was that the path allowed to be used by the plaintiffs by his vendor was already in occupation of defendant No. 8 by virtue of decree passed in T.S. No 6/83. The defendant purchased 4 katha of land on 01-11-2002 by sale deed No. 3024 from the co-sharer of the land with a specific boundary including a 5 feet path and the vendor of the defendants delivered the possession of the land purchased by sale deed No. 3024 along with the 5 feet path on the southern side of the land and the plaintiffs did not have any right or title over the said path running from east to west through the southern boundary of the defendants’ land. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues:- (i) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs acquire any right, title, interest and possession over the schedule-1 of the plaint? (iii) Whether the deed of 3rd schedule land is not applicable to 2nd schedule land? (iv) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs acquire any right, title, interest and possession over the schedule-1 of the plaint? (iii) Whether the deed of 3rd schedule land is not applicable to 2nd schedule land? (iv) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. Both the parties adduced evidence, oral as well as documentary and after hearing both the sides, learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, declaring plaintiffs’ absolute right of use of the pathway described in Schedule II of the plaint, without any interference by the defendants and also granted permanent injunction for removing the obstruction from the path. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. Aggrieved by the appellate judgment and decree, the defendants preferred the instant second appeal, which was admitted to heard on the following substantial questions of law:- Whether the Courts below are justified in declaring the absolute right of way of the plaintiff in respect of Schedule-2 land, without any interference on the user of the said pathway by the defendants, their agents and their representative etc., in view of the Ext-2 deed dated 21.03.2003 and Ext. 3 document dated 01.11.2002, in other words, whether Exts.2 and 3 documents are properly interpreted? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, assisted by Mr. L. Mohan and learned counsel for the respondents, Mrs. R. Chakraborty were heard. 9. The plaintiffs in support of their claim, proved Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 being the two sale deeds. By Ext. 1 the plaintiffs purchased 4 kathas 8 chataks of land from Dag No. 2085. In the said sale deed Ext. 1, it was clearly mentioned that a 5 feet path from the south-west corner of the plaintiffs’ purchased land running from east to west to the PWD Road was given for ingress and egress of the plaintiffs. By Ext. 2, the subsequent sale deed, the plaintiffs' vendor again sold 4 chataks of land to the plaintiffs. From the recital of Ext. By Ext. 2, the subsequent sale deed, the plaintiffs' vendor again sold 4 chataks of land to the plaintiffs. From the recital of Ext. 2 it appears, that in execution of decree passed in favour of defendant No. 8, the plaintiffs were deprived of 4 chataks of their purchased land as the said land fell in the share of defendant No. 8 by virtue of the decree passed in T.S. No. 6/1983 and in order to compensate the plaintiffs, Ex-2 sale deed was executed. In Ext. 2, the vendor of the plaintiffs also acknowledged and allowed the plaintiffs to use the present suit path. In Ext.Cha sale deed No. 3024 executed in favour of the defendant, whereby the defendant purchased 4 katha of land from dag no. 2085 for Radha Seva Ashram, the boundary of the land purchased by the defendant was as under:- East Digendra Das West Legal Heirs of Jotindra Mohan Deb North LRS of Sumantha Bhattacharyya South 5 feet wide path, which ended at the PWD Road on the western end. 10. It was also mentioned in Ext.Cha sale deed, that the said 5 feet path shall be used by the visitor of the Mandir and defendants were also allowed to use the said path for taking underground water connection as well as overhead electricity connection etc. Thus, Ext. Ja, the title deed of the defendants, by which the Radha Seva Ashram purchased 4 kathas of land through the defendant/appellant No. 1, makes it abundantly clear that the suit path was not included in the land purchased by defendants and defendants were allowed to use the path for taking water connection, electricity connection etc, besides, allowing the visitors of the Mandir to use the suit path. Rather from the boundary of the suit land of Ext.Cha, it is amply clear, that the said path was shown as a southern boundary of the land purchased by the defendants. The claim of the plaintiffs that they were using the suit path having been allowed by the vendor of the defendants is also supported by Santosh Kr. Deb (defendant No. 8), the decree holder in T.S. No. 6/1983 as well as PW 3 and PW 4. The claim of the plaintiffs that they were using the suit path having been allowed by the vendor of the defendants is also supported by Santosh Kr. Deb (defendant No. 8), the decree holder in T.S. No. 6/1983 as well as PW 3 and PW 4. Ext.Ja another sale deed relied by the defendants also clearly shows, that the suit path is on the southern boundary of land purchased by Radha Seva Ashram and the said land was owned by the vendor of the defendant and not included in the land sold to defendants vide Ext.Cha or Ja. However, right to use the said path on the southern boundary of defendants' land was also given to the defendants and the visitors of the temple. 11. Thus, the execution of the sale deeds Ext. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs or Ext.Cha or Ja in favour of the defendants was not in dispute. From the title deed of both the parties, it is amply clear, that the 5 feet suit path was neither sold to the plaintiffs, nor to the defendants and the said path was allowed to be used by plaintiffs as well as the defendants, and as such, both the plaintiffs and defendants have the right to uninterrupted use of the suit path. This being the position, in my considered view, the concurrent findings of both the courts below, that the plaintiffs got the right to use the suit path without any interference from any quarter, including the defendants, cannot be faulted, inasmuch, as the learned courts below declared only the right of the plaintiffs to use the path without interference by anyone, and such declaration appears to be on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. Be that as it may, a combined reading of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs and also in favour of the defendants, the position becomes amply clear that neither the plaintiffs, nor the defendants had any title over the suit path and they were only given the right to use the suit path by the actual owner of the land without any interference by anyone. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law is answered in negative and in favour of the plaintiffs. 12. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law is answered in negative and in favour of the plaintiffs. 12. In view of the decisions of the substantial questions of law as above, the present appeal appears to be devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. 13. Send back the LCR.