JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiffs, suit for rendition, of, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as well as, for declaration qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the property and building detailed in the plaint. It is averred that the building of the plaintiffs is known as East View, Kasumpti, building on Khasra No.635. The defendants are owners in possession of the adjoining property comprised in Khata/Khatoni No.71/97, Khasra Nos. 610, 611, 616, 676, 628 at Kasumpti. The property of the plaintiffs and adjoining property of the defendants are abutted. But between the landed properties of the parties exist a common passage 4-5 feet wide passing through the land of Khasra No.676 of the defendants. The passage has been used and enjoyed by the plaintiff after purchase of the land. Earlier their predecessors had been using the passage since time immemorial, without obstruction or interference. Such usage by them was open, peaceful and hostile. In settlement of 1995, the common passage of Khasra No.767 was recorded as Rasta Share Aam. Defendants have no right to interfere or obstruct in usage of path by the plaintiffs. But in September, 1999, they started interfering in peaceful user of the path which plaintiffs had been using for purpose of repair and maintenance of the retaining wall of 10 feet high and 50 feet long abutting the common passage. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. In their written statement, the defendants controverted the case of the plaintiffs by denying their allegations. Existence of common passage on land of defendants Khasra No.676 is denied. It is also denied that the plaintiffs are owners of the adjoining land to the extent of 1699.55 sq. meters. The plaintiff, in connivance with revenue officials, got more land recorded in their names in revenue record than their actual entitlement. The plaintiffs had purchased land from Shiv Raj Devi, who was owner of 2-2 bighas only. So present settlement record showing more possession of the plaintiffs is wrong and illegal. However, defendants admits themselves to be owners of the land in Khata/Khauni No.71/95 min and 71/97. But denied the existence of path upon khasra No.676. The plaintiffs had purchased land from Shiv Raj Devi, who was owner of 2-2 bighas only. So present settlement record showing more possession of the plaintiffs is wrong and illegal. However, defendants admits themselves to be owners of the land in Khata/Khauni No.71/95 min and 71/97. But denied the existence of path upon khasra No.676. It is averred that neither any path is being used by the plaintiff through land of the defendants since times immemorial nor they were using so called common passage peacefully. Settlement was conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, which was challenged by way of civil suit by the defendants. Gair Mumkn Rasta as wrongly incorporated in the revenue record. It is averred that the plaintiffs had not left any set back to repair their retaining wall and cannot claim right over the adjoining land of the defendants. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have the right to use common passage through Khasra No.676 as alleged if so its effect? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the suit has not been properly verified? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from the court? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 9. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellant herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellant herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 13.01.2006, hence, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether from the material on record, it was established that the plaintiff had acquired the right of passage for repair of the retaining wall and septic tank by necessity as also prescription and the plaintiff had a right of passage which was recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta Share Aam to which presumption of truth was attached? (b) Whether from the evidence on record the only conclusion which could be drawn was that the plaintiff had proved the existence of common public path on the land in dispute entitling the plaintiff to use the same by necessity as also acquisition of the same by prescription? (c) Whether presumption of truth attached to the revenue records have been ignored and wrong inference drawn which has vitiated the findings? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 7. (c) Whether presumption of truth attached to the revenue records have been ignored and wrong inference drawn which has vitiated the findings? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has, contended with much vigour, before this Court (i) that in declining the espoused relief to the plaintiff, both the learned courts below rather committing, a, grave fallacy, comprised, in theirs miscomprehending or mis-appreciating, the, import, of, the relevant entries, occurring in Ex.PW1/A, and, in Ex.PW1/B, exhibits whereof are revenue documents, appertaining to the suit khasra number, (ii) especially appertaining, to, the successive entries, occurring therein, ephatically in the column of cultivation thereof, wherein rather reflections occur qua the suit property being depicted, as, Shreaam Rasta, and, also in the column of classification thereof, the suit khasra number, being depicted as gair mumkin path, (iii) thereupon, when the suit khasra number(s), were, given the afore self evident graphic bespeaking, made by the afore reflections, rather hence, available for user by the general public, for, ingress into and egress from, their, respective abodes, (iv) thereupon, the afore suit khasra numbers, hence constituted the apt servient heritage, and, the plaintiffs became, the, dominant owners thereof, along with other members of the public, trudging thereon, for the relevant purpose, (v) and, also hence the plaintiffs firmly proving theirs hence acquiring an easementary right of passage, upon, the suit khasra numbers. However, the afore contention, is, unworthy of any merit, and, is out rightly rejected, (a) given the afore reflections, occurring in the afore exhibits, not enjoining, theirs being read in isolation, from, oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs qua the pleaded factum, of, acquisition of right of passage, upon, the suit khasra number(s), rather ensuing qua them, on account of immemorial user thereof, by persons residing, in, the locality concerned, (b) nor ipso facto hence he afore reflections, not bestowing, upon, the plaintiff, an absolute indefeasible right of user of suit khasra number(s), as an apt passage, (c) besides rather contrary therewith oral evidence, of, immense potency, obviously, when, undermines veracity thereof, it, also benumbing the presumption, of truth enjoyed hence by the afore entries. 8. 8. Nowat, hence, apart from hence negativing, the afore, presumption of truth, enjoyed by the afore reflections occurring, in the afore exhibits, it is also incumbent upon this Court, to further determine, whether, the pleaded factum probandum qua the acquisition of right of passage, upon, the suit khasra number(s), rather accruing, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, imperatively since times immemorial, (i) and, concomitantly, the apt espoused right acquiring the mantle of, right of absolute prescriptive user thereof, by the plaintiffs, (ii) rather hence also coming to be proved, by cogent evidence therewith, being adduced by the plaintiff. In the afore endeavour, PW-1 though testified qua his predecessor, using, the suit khasra number. However, his echoing qua therewith is frail, for, want of his predecessor(s) stepping into the witness box, (iii) also, for want of other persons, residing in the locality concerned, making corroborative therewith testifications, with, firm echoings therein qua the user of the contested suit path, rather occurring since times immemorial. Reiteratedly, with the afore apt evidence hence being grossly amiss hereat, rather with PW-2, in his testification, borne in his cross-examination, making an admission qa the contested suit passage, only leading upto the house of the defendants, (iv) and, thereafter though, he also makes, an echoing, qua, it also leading to the abodes, of the persons residing below the suit passage, (v) yet in succession thereof, hence failing to name the persons, whose abodes exist below the contested suit passage. Consequently, the effect(s) of an incisive reading thereof, obviously does make trite unfoldments, that, the contested suit passage, rather leading only to the house of the defendants, and, corollary thereof being qua the contested suit passage rather not leading upto the house of the plaintiff, (vi) and, therefrom, the, further inference is qua the plaintiffs, hence, making a false propagation qua theirs hence using the contested suit passage, for egressing into or ingressing from their abodes. Furthermore, with thereafter PW-2 in his cross-examination also making an admission qua the plaintiffs' hence, for making repairs, of, their septic tank, making user, of, rather a path alternative, to, the contested suit path, (vii) and, his also making an echoing, that, the plaintiffs, being also facilitated, to, effect repairs to the septic tank, from, within, the boundaries of the khasra numbers, as, owned and possessed by them, (viii) thereupon, a firm clinching inference, is, garnerable qua the plaintiff, even for effecting repairs, of, the septic tank, rather holding an apt alternative passage hence to arrive thereupto, (ix) and, when a passage alternative to the suit passage, is available hence for the afore purpose, to, the plaintiffs, thereupon, they are barred to espouse that they hence hold any easementary right of necessity, or prescription rather to trudge, upon, the suit passage, for any purpose whatsoever. 9. In summa, the afore reliance, upon, the afore reflections, occurring in Ex. PW1/A and, Ex.PW1/B, cannot, (i) subsume the effect of the pleadings, reared by the plaintiffs in their plaint, where through, they rather claim a right of easement by prescription, vis-a-vis, the contested passage, (ii) reiteratedly when evidence adduced qua therewith, for reasons aforestated, is both frail, and, weak, (iii) nor ipso facto hence the afore reflections, can in the least empower, the plaintiff to claim a right, of, passage, upon, the contested suit khasra number(s), (iv) rather rendition of an affirmative decree, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff would cause an immense casualty, to, the afore oral evidence adversarial, to the afore reflections, occurring in the afore exhibits, (v) besides would untenably solitarily empower, the, plaintiffs, to, use the suit khasra number(s), as a path, despite, no other person residing in the locality, using it, for the afore purpose, (vi) whereas, for the afore entry to carry any aura of truth or veracity, evident user, of, the suit passage, as a path, by the entire public hence residing in the locality concerned, was imperative, (vii) thereupon, it appears that the afore entry, is, merely a paper entry, hence carries no relevance, for, enabling the plaintiffs to derive any strength hence whatsoever therefrom, (viii) thereupon, the presumption, of, truth, if any, carried by the afore entriy, is, fully effaced. 10. 10. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not, excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.