JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a defendants’ appeal against reversing judgment. 2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction from the suit land, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the right of easement and damages of Rs.300/-. Case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of plot no.250 appertaining to Khata No.129 of Mouza-Girima (Karanjia). He purchased the house from the recorded owner Nathulal Agarwalla by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.2.1984. He is in possession of the house. Prior to purchase, the house was in possession of his father for more than thirty years. The house is situated to the east of the house of the defendants. The house of the defendants stands over plot no.252 towards east. There is a lane measuring 3 feet in width from east to west and 38 feet in length from south to north between two houses. The plaintiff uses the passage for the last 40 years to carry goods to his house. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plant. Case of the defendants is that the suit land belongs to them. The same is not in possession of the plaintiff. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their case. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has opened the back door of his house to the suit land in the year 1984. The plaintiff cannot claim right of easement either by prescription or necessity. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.3 of 1988 before the learned Sub-Judge, Karanjia. Contention was raised that Indian Easements Act, 1882 (in short, “the Act”) is not applicable to the State of Orissa. Learned appellate court came to hold that the Act has been extended to the State of Orissa with effect from 16.8.1967. Banshi Ram had constructed a house in Plot No.250 in the year 1941, which was used as godown. Banshi Ram sold the house to the father of the plaintiff. Thereafter, he had sold the house to Nathuram Agarwalla. Nathuram sold the house to the plaintiff in the year 1984. Banshi Ram had constructed a house in Plot No.250 in the year 1941, which was used as godown. Banshi Ram sold the house to the father of the plaintiff. Thereafter, he had sold the house to Nathuram Agarwalla. Nathuram sold the house to the plaintiff in the year 1984. Right from 1941 till the dispute arose the suit land has been used as the passage to go inside the house situated in Plot No.250. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law; “Whether the respondent acquired the right of easement according to law on the disputed passage ?” 6. Heard Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no land between the house of the plaintiff and the defendants. Learned trial court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has opened the back door of his house to the suit land in the year 1984. In view of the same, the plaintiff cannot claim right of easement either by prescription or necessity. He further submitted that there is a passage from the main road to the house of the plaintiff. Since there is an alternative passage from entering into the house, right of easement cannot be claimed by the plaintiff. 8. During pendency of the suit, an advocate commissioner was deputed. He submitted the report, which was marked as Ext.2. The report reveals that the suit lane is in between the house of the plaintiff and the defendants. The public road lies to the south of both the houses. The lane starts from the public road and ends at the end of the northern boundary of the plaintiff’s land and house. The house of the plaintiff has an opening towards the suit lane to drain out water from the roof. Water from the roof of the defendants’ house is also drained out in the suit lane. There is a back door in the house of the plaintiff opening to the lane towards the northern end of the house. There is no lane other than the suit lane to go inside the house of the plaintiff through back door. The suit lane can be used as passage for carrying articles and goods inside the house of the plaintiff through the back door. There is no lane other than the suit lane to go inside the house of the plaintiff through back door. The suit lane can be used as passage for carrying articles and goods inside the house of the plaintiff through the back door. The water from the roof of the plaintiff’s house in its western portion and from the roof of the house of the defendants in its eastern portion can be suitably discharged through the suit lane. 9. Learned trial court misread and misconstrued the report and decreed the suit. Learned appellate court scanned the evidence on record and came to a conclusion that the suit lane has been peacefully and openly enjoyed by the inmates of the house situated in Plot No.250 for more than 20 years as right of easement. There is no perversity or illegality in the said finding. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.