JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiffs instituted a Civil Suit bearing No.121-1 of 99/97 before the learned Sub Judge, (v), Shimla, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed right of easement of necessity over the servient heritage owned by the defendant. The plaintiffs espoused, for theirs being permitted to exercise, on the servient heritage owned by the defendants, the easementary right of theirs trudging thereons, and, the exercisings (supra) by them over the servient heritage, became rested on the pleaded ground of easement of necessity. In the relief clause of the civil suit supra, the plaintiffs prayed for the making of the hereinafter extracted relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, creating any obstruction or blocking the approach path to their properties comprised in khasra Nos. 792/326/1 and 792/326/2 through the land comprised in khasra No. 793/326/6 and shown by line 'AB' in the attached tatima in any manner and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction, if any, found to be created at the time of passing the decree, by the defendant, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant with costs of the suit.” 2. The defendant instituted a written statement, and, along therewith a counterclaim was also instituted, wherein, he pleaded complete denial, vis-a-vis, the afore espoused exercisings of right of easement, by way of necessity, over the servient heritage owned by him. Moreover, the defendant/counter-claimant also claimed, the making of a decree of mandatory injunction, for hence injuncting the plaintiffs, to hence restore the demolished wall, as becomes reflected in the photographs, as became attached with the written statement/counter claim. Moreover, the relief for appointment of a local commissioner, for ascertaining the encroachments made by the plaintiffs, over the land, owned by the defendant was also sought. In addition, a decree for possession was asked to be made by the defendant/counterclaimant, vis-a-vis, the portion owned by the defendant, and, encroached upon by the plaintiffs. 3. The learned trial Court, on the contentious pleadings of the parties at contest proceeded, to formulate the hereinafter extracted issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have easementary right of the necessity to use the suit path as alleged in para 4 and the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? The learned trial Court, on the contentious pleadings of the parties at contest proceeded, to formulate the hereinafter extracted issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have easementary right of the necessity to use the suit path as alleged in para 4 and the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant/counter claimant is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction for restoring the debris to wall in its original possession as prayed for? OPD. 6. Whether the defendant/counter claimant is entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPD 7. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable, as alleged? OPP. 8. Whether the defendant/counter claimant has no cause of action? OPP 9. Whether the land has partitioned between the plaintiffs and defendant and they are occupied the land separately as alleged, if so its effect? OPD 10. Whether the counter claim is part of the 171 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, as alleged? OPD. 11.Whether the suit has not been properly valued, as alleged? OPD. 12.Relief. 4. After perusal of the evidence adduced, upon, the above extracted issues, whereons the apposite onus stood cast, upon the contesting litigants concerned, the learned trial Court through its verdict made on 9.1.2002, both upon Civil Suit No.121-1 of 99/97, and, upon Counter Claim No. 141-1 of 2000, dismissed both the plaintiffs' suit, and, also the defendant's counter claim (supra). 5. The counter-claimant/defendant, did not institute, any appeal before the learned first appellate Court, against the verdict, as made by the learned trial Court on 9.1.2002, where through, both the civil suit as well as his counter claim became dismissed. Consequently, the verdict as made by the learned trial Court on 9.1.2002, hence, dismissing counter claim No. 151-1 of 2000, does acquire, the completest conclusivity, and, binding force. 6. However, the aggrieved plaintiffs, constituted against the dismissal of their civil suit, a Civil Appeal bearing No. 48-s/13 of 04/02, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made on 21.10.2005, upon, the afore civil appeal, dismissed the appeal (supra), and, affirmed the verdict of the learned trial Court. 7. 6. However, the aggrieved plaintiffs, constituted against the dismissal of their civil suit, a Civil Appeal bearing No. 48-s/13 of 04/02, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made on 21.10.2005, upon, the afore civil appeal, dismissed the appeal (supra), and, affirmed the verdict of the learned trial Court. 7. The plaintiffs being aggrieved, from the afore verdict of the learned First Appellate Court, are led to constitute there against, the extant appeal before this Court. 8. When the appeal came up, for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 29.03.2006, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the right of passage by way of easement of necessity can be claimed even when alternative passage is available? Substantial question of Law No.1. 9. This court would become constrained, to answer the above extracted substantial question of law, in favour of the plaintiffs, only when upon a deepest and incisive reading, of the evidence existing on record, rather striking echoings becoming borne therein, and theirs making trite displays, that no path alternative to the suit path, is available to the plaintiffs, for theirs trudging thereons, hence for theirs accessing their abode. However, existence of the afore affirmative evidence, conspicuously in favour of the plaintiffs' espousal, though would constrain this Court, to draw an inference, that the propagated easementary right, of necessity, rather for facilitating the plaintiffs to enjoy their right to access their homestead, is well rested on evidence supra. However, in case evidence on record, is rather suggestive, that the afore exercisings of easementary right of necessity, over the servient heritage owned by the defendant, is falsified, through the availability to the plaintiffs, of an alternative path, for the requisite purpose, thereupon, this Court would proceed to answer the above extracted substantial question of law against the plaintiffs, and, in favour of the defendant. 10. In making an adjudication with respect to the above, this Court has made a deep study of the evidence of PW-2. Though, in his examination-in-chief, he has made echoings rather bearing the completest compatibility with the averments carried in the plaint. 10. In making an adjudication with respect to the above, this Court has made a deep study of the evidence of PW-2. Though, in his examination-in-chief, he has made echoings rather bearing the completest compatibility with the averments carried in the plaint. However, a reading of his cross-examination, unfolds, that though suggestions became meted to him, by the learned counsel for the defendant, and, appertaining to existence of an alternate path, behind the house of the defendant, for thereons the relevant right of easement, being exercised by the plaintiffs, and, even though to the afore suggestion an apt denial became meted by the plaintiff(s). However, dehors any denial being meted by the plaintiffs, to suggestions supra, qua the existence of an alternative path, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, for theirs trudging thereon, rather for theirs accessing their homestead, yet it is suggestive, of the defendant permitting the trudging thereons by the plaintiffs, for hence the latter accessing their homestead. In short, dehors the above denial to suggestions supra, when there is an acquiesced availability, of an alternative path, other than the suit path, and, contrarily whereon(s) the plaintiffs are claiming a right of easement by way of necessity, for theirs hence becoming facilitated to access their homestead, thereupon the pleaded suit path hold no merit. 11. Be that as it may, the afore drawn inference, became strived to be negated, by the plaintiff, and, also he strived to stake a claim only, vis-a-vis, the above pleaded easementary right of necessity, over the suit path rather through his, in his cross-examination, claiming the pleaded easementary right over the servient heritage, as echoed in the relief clause supra, strikingly on the ground, that it became echoed in the sale deed. Consequently, this Court was led to peruse the contents of the sale deed. A reading of the sale deed, for determining the afore strivings of the plaintiffs, however, did not reveal, that it contained any echoing hence supportive of the strivings supra, as made by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs' endeavour to, on the afore score, claim exercisings by way of necessity, the pleaded right of easement, over the suit land, becomes fully negated. Therefore, the plaintiffs' endeavour to, on the afore score, claim exercisings by way of necessity, the pleaded right of easement, over the suit land, becomes fully negated. As a corollary, the pleaded right of easement by way of necessity, over the suit path, as is echoed in the relief clause supra, and, as borne in the civil suit supra, cannot be permissibly exercised thereons rather by the plaintiffs. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by both the learned Courts below are based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned Courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent, and, against the appellants. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees, impugned before this Court are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.