JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed, against, the verdict recorded by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, upon, Civil Appeal No. 59-CA/13 of 2004, where through, the verdict, hence, dismissing, the, suit bearing No. 84/1 of 2002 ,of the plaintiffs'/respondent No.1, and, of, the LRs of respondent No.2 herein (for short "the plaintiffs"), as, made by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, Sirmaur, H.P., stood reversed, and, the defendant/appellant herein (for short ?the defendant?), through, the impugned order, was, directed, to, remove, the, obstruction, including the wooden poles, and, grass cutting machine, from the disputed path. Site plan, borne in Ex. PW-2/A, was, also directed, to, form part and parcel of the decree. 2. The brief facts of the case, are, that the plaintiffs, are, permanent residents of village Kishanpura, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, having their abadi, in, Khasra No. 16, Khata Khatauni No. 43 min/69. As per them, there is a 15 wide path, as, shown in red colour in the site plan borne in Ex.PW-2/A (referred to as ?suit path?), for, ingressing and egressing, and, the said path is also being used, for, plying bullock carts and tractors, which exists on khasra No. 17, which connects their houses with the main road since the time of their ancestors. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that on 14.12.2001, the defendant, who is one of the residents of abode in khasra No. 1, has forcibly obstructed the path, by erecting the wooden poles, and, placing heaps of wood. Consequently the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C, on, 15.12.2001, before, the SDM concerned, praying therein that the afore obstructions be removed, but, still on 7.8.2002, the, defendant has installed a grass cutter machine. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that the suit path is used since the time immemorial, by the people, for, their ingress and egress, and, to carry their bullock carts and tractors from their houses to the main road, therefore, the plaintiff have acquired right, to, use the disputed path, by way of easement. As such, the plaintiffs filed a suit, where through, they pray for, a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant, to, remove the wooden poles and grass cutting machine, and, also pray for a decree of permanent injunction. 3. As such, the plaintiffs filed a suit, where through, they pray for, a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant, to, remove the wooden poles and grass cutting machine, and, also pray for a decree of permanent injunction. 3. The defendant contested the suit by taking preliminary objections qua locus standee, maintainability, estoppal, non-joiner, and, cause of action. On merits, he denies the existence of disputed path. It is also averred that the plaintiffs have vacant land adjacent to the land under dispute, but they are trying to take a new approach from the courtyard of the defendant. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication, in, which they have reasserted and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the suit is hit by order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file present suit as alleged ?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action, as alleged? OPD 8. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiffs, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court, while reversing the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court, allowed, the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. 7. Now the defendant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein, he assails the findings recorded, in the impugned verdict, hence by the learned first appellate Court. When the appeal, came up, for admission, on 29.9.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question, of law:- (a) whether the learned first appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and holding that the plaintiffs/respondents have a path through the land in question without considering the provisions of Sections 15 and 20 of the Easements Act and coy of Mesabi Ex. D-1? D-1? (b) Whether the learned first Appellate Court failed to consider the material evidence on record, particularly the document Ex.PW-2/A and statement of PW-2 which if considered would have led to the opposite result? Substantial questions of law:- 8. The plaintiffs' suit, is, anchored, upon, an bereavement cast therein, vis-a-vis, theirs holding, an, easement of necessity, to, trudge upon the suit path, hence, for his ingressing into or egressing from his abode, and, also, is, anviled, upon, qua thereon, alike them, their bullock-carts also being plied, from, the house of the plaintiffs, up, to the main road. 9. Though, the entire bedrock of the afore bereavement, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, holding, for their personal use, (a) an easement, of, necessity, right to trudge over the suit path, for, the afore purpose, is, diminished, by, an acquiescence made, by PW-3 (Shri Geeta Ram), in his cross-examination, (b) qua the plaintiffs rather using the vacant land owned and possessed by them, hence for, the relevant purpose, (c) however the nullification effect, of, the afore acquiescence, made by PW-3, hence, in his cross-examination, vis-a-vis, the requisite propagation of the plaintiffs, does not, to the fullest negate, the further claim of the plaintiffs, qua, the suit path being also used by them, for, theirs enabling theirs bullock carts being plied thereon, (d) for, hence theirs being carried, from, their houses up to the main road, given, no apposite suggestions qua therewith being meted to PWs nor any apt affirmative answers being meted thereto, by, the PWs concerned. An aggravated momentum to the afore inference is garnered, from, the testifications of the afore, as, embodied in their respective examinations-in-chief, making echoings, vis-a-vis, bullock carts owned by them being plied on the suit path, and also each of the plaintiff's witnesses', making the afore testifications, with the fullest inter-se corroboration, and, when their respective testifications, remained unrebutted, vis-a-vis, their vigor, even during the course, of, their respective cross-examinations (a) thereupon, reiteratedly, even though the plaintiffs, may be holding, an alternate path, for, the relevant purpose, (b) yet, when the alternate path, is, not imminently demonstrated, to be holding a sufficient width, for, enabling the plying thereon, of the bullock carts, and, tractors owned by the plaintiffs, and, (c) thereupon, the mere existence of an alternate path, may minimally erode the efficacy, of, averments, and, also efficacy, of, testifications, rendered by the plaintiffs, qua, theirs holding, an, indefeasible right of easement, of, necessity, to, personally use the suit path, (d) nonetheless when averments are also cast in the plaint, and, also when firm evidence exists, vis-a-vis, the suit path, also, existing as an easement of necessity, for, enabling the plying(s) thereon, of, bullock carts, and, tractors of the plaintiffs, (e) thereupon, the afore requisite pleaded easement of necessity, and, also with uneroded evidence in concurrence therewith, hence being adduced rather constrains this Court to record a finding qua the plaintiffs establishing the pleaded factum, qua the requisite easement of necessity, vis-a-vis, the plying(s), of bullock carts, and, of their tractors, upon the suit path begetting cogently established. 10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith all pending applications. The impugned verdict is maintained, and, affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. No costs. Records be sent back.