JUDGMENT : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1, being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 14 th March 2007, passed in R.A. No.14/2005 by the Fast Tract Court No.II, Bagalkot (for short “the First Appellate Court”), by which the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by defendant Nos.5 to 9, set aside the judgment and decree dated 18 th December 2004, passed in O.S. No.172/2000 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bagalkot (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The First Appellate Court further declared that the plaintiffs have acquired the right of easement by prescription over the suit schedule “ABCD” pathway in the land belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2, for the purpose of accessing their lands bearing R.S. Nos.56/1 and 56/2 of Sharadal Village to carry out agricultural activities. Consequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were restrained from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in the use and enjoyment of suit “ABCD” pathway. 3. Plaintiffs filed the above suit in O.S. No.172/2000 against defendant Nos.1 to 9, contending inter alia; (a) That plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are the owners of R.S.No.56/1 and plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 are the owners of R.S. No.56/2. Originally, the land bearing R.S. No.56 belonged to one Saidusab Soudagar, who sold the said land in 1955 to the ancestors of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, there was a partition amongst the ancestors of the plaintiffs, resulting in creation of two subdivisions assigning R.S. Nos.56/1 and 56/2 in the year 1974. (b) That defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the lands bearing R.S. Nos.56/2/2 and 54/2/1. Defendant Nos. 3 to 9 are the owners of lands bearing R.S.Nos.55/2A, 55/2B and 55/1, respectively. (c) A hand sketch has been produced along with the plaint, depicting the location of the properties owned by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 9. (d) That ever since the purchase in the year 1955, they have been accessing their respective lands using cart, agricultural implements, and with the help of servants, from Kaladagi Village via the pathway shown as “ABCD” in the hand sketch. At point “B”, they take diversion towards West into the land belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2, proceed to point “C”, and from there, enter their lands. At point “B”, they take diversion towards West into the land belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2, proceed to point “C”, and from there, enter their lands. Thus, it is claimed that the plaintiffs have been exercising a prescriptive right of easement over the portion marked “ABCD” in the hand sketch, which forms part of the land owned by defendant Nos.1 and 2. (e) That they have been exercising the said prescriptive right of easement peacefully and without any obstruction ever since the date of purchase, and that they have no other access to their lands. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2, who own the adjoining lands, are now obstructing the plaintiffs from accessing their land. It is further contended that the lands bearing R.S. Nos.55/2A, 55/2B and 55/1, owned by defendant Nos.3 to 9, are situated adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs, and abutting the main road. That the defendants also have an obligation to provide access to the plaintiffs for agricultural purpose, by way of customary rights, through the portion marked as “APQD” in the hand sketch. Hence, the present suit seeking the following reliefs: “A. It be declared that plaintiffs have acquired, easementary right by way of prescription as well as by way of necessity to approach their lands R.S.Nos.56/1 and 56/2 of Shardal with carts, bullocks, men, agricultural establishment etc. along ABCD as shown in this plaint sketch. B. It be declared also that the plaintiffs have acquired customery right to approach their lands through R.S.Nos.55/2A, 55/2B and 55/1 of defendants 3 to 8 along APQD, shown in the plaint sketch. C. A consequential permanent injunction be issued against defendants, their men, agents, servants restraining them from interfering with plaintiffs' right of prescription necessity as customary right as stated above, along the suit way as shown in ABCD, in the plaint sketch. D. Costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs from defendants.” 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 9 appeared through their respective counsel. Defendant No.2 is stated to have passed away during the pendency of the suit, and his Legal representatives were not brought on record. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement on 31.07.2002 along with a hand sketch. Defendant No.8 also filed his written statement with a hand sketch map on 18.07.2002, which was adopted by defendant Nos.5 to 9 by filing a memo. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement on 31.07.2002 along with a hand sketch. Defendant No.8 also filed his written statement with a hand sketch map on 18.07.2002, which was adopted by defendant Nos.5 to 9 by filing a memo. 5. In his written statement, defendant No.1 denied the case of the plaintiffs and contended: (a) That the hand sketch produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint was incorrect and misleading. Accordingly, he submitted a separate hand sketch along with his written statement. However, defendant No.1 admitted that plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are the owners of the land bearing R.S. No.56/1 and plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 are the owners of the land bearing R.S. No.56/2. He also admitted that the land bearing R.S. No.56 had been divided into two subdivisions. (b) That there is an existing road leading from Sharadal Village to Kaladagi and Kajjidoni Village, as shown in the hand sketch map filed by the defendants. This road abuts the northern side of the land of one Kharikatti. Defendant No.1 claimed that at point “C” he turns southward, and this pathway leads to Kajjidoni Village. That all the plaintiffs access their land through the Kaladagi road, turning at point “C”, them proceeding to point “E”, and from there to point “F” to reach their land, as shown in the hand sketch map produced in the written statement. (c) That defendants access their land through Kaladagi-Kajjidoni road at points W1, W2 and W3. Defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs, or their ancestors and predecessors, have always reached their lands bearing R.S. Nos.56/1 and 56/2 through the said pathway shown in the map produced by defendant No.1, since time immemorial and as such the claim of the plaintiffs using the portion of land marked “ABCD” in their hand sketch map produced along with the plaint is incorrect. (d) That there is a bund at point “AD” in the hand sketch map of defendants, which is having a height of 6 feet and hence there is no question of claiming right of way over such bund and the said bund exists for more than 100 years. That there are two alternative routes in existence for the plaintiffs to reach their lands, as shown in the hand sketch map, which is produced along with the written statement. That there are two alternative routes in existence for the plaintiffs to reach their lands, as shown in the hand sketch map, which is produced along with the written statement. Thus, it is submitted that the suit is filed only to cause unnecessary hardship to the defendants and hence, sought for dismissal. 6. Defendant No.8 in his written statement denied the plaint averments. Defendant No.8 also produced a hand sketch contending that in the middle of land bearing R.S. No.55/1 there is a bund running from North to South and the width of the said bund is about 8 to 10 feet and the height is 10 feet and the same is existing for over 100 years, as such the plaintiffs cannot claim any customary right over the portion of the property. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove contents of hand sketch map annexed to plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are exercising their prescriptive right of easement along “ABCD” shown in the plaint sketch from point of B to C since the time of their purchase of suit lands? 3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit way is the only way to approach their lands for the purpose of agricultural operation? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove any obstruction of defendants over their right to use and enjoy the suit way to approach their lands? 5. Whether the plaintiffs acquire customary right to approach their lands R.S.No.55/2A, 55/2B and 55/1 of defendant No.3 to 8 along “ABQB” portion? 6. What order or Decree? 8. Plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW1 and also examined two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3. The plaintiffs produced and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The legal representative of the deceased defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and also examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW3, and marked 3 documents as Exs.D1 to D3. Defendant No.7 examined himself as DW4. At the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 5 to 9, a Commissioner was appointed, who was examined as CW1. The commissioner’s report and the accompanying map were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 9. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court answered issues Nos.1 to 5 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. At the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 5 to 9, a Commissioner was appointed, who was examined as CW1. The commissioner’s report and the accompanying map were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 9. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court answered issues Nos.1 to 5 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. Consequently, partly decreed the suit by declaring that the plaintiffs had acquired an easementary right by way of prescription and necessity over the southern portion of the land bearing R.S. No.55/1 belonging to defendant Nos.5 to 9, for the purpose of accessing their lands bearing R.S. Nos.56/1 and 56/2 and consequently restrained defendant Nos.5 to 9 from causing any obstructions to the plaintiffs’ use of the said pathway. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant Nos.5 to 9 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.14/2005. The First Appellate Court, after considering the grounds urged and the pleadings, framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are using the suit ABCD way in the lands of defendants-1 and 2 shown in the sketch to approach their land since time immemorial and further proves that they are enjoying the said suit way more than statutory period and they have acquired right of easement by prescription over the suit way? 2. Whether the plaintiff alternately proves that they have acquired customary easements over the way shown in ABPQ in the land of defendants-3 to 8? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have got alternate way to reach their lands? 4. Whether the defendants/appellants prove that the findings recorded by the trial court on the issues are erroneous and perverse, hence the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below is not sustainable in law? 5. What order? 11. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and consequently it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. What order? 11. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and consequently it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified declaring that the plaintiffs have acquired a right of easement by way of prescription over the suit pathway marked “ABCD” in the land of defendant Nos.1 and 2, for the purpose of accessing their land bearing R.S. Nos.56/1 and 56/2 for agricultural operations and restrained the defendants from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in the use and enjoyment of the said “ABCD”pathway. 12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court, the legal representative of defendant No.1 is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 13. By order dated 30.08.2012, this Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law, which reads as under: “Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law in discarding the Commissioner’s report – Ex.C1 and the map – Ex.C2?” 14. Learned counsel Shri S.R. Hegde, appearing for the legal representative of defendant No.1, while reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, submitted; (a) That the First Appellate Court erred in rejecting the Commissioner’s report merely on the ground that the report and the sketch did not tallying with the map produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants. That the very purpose of appointing the Commissioner was to ascertain the factual aspects of the matter, which are clearly reflected in the report and the accompanying sketch. However, instead of appreciating this evidence, the First Appellate Court discarded it. Non-consideration of the Commissioner’s report and sketch amounts to perversity in appreciation of the evidence, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. (b) That defendant No.1, in his written statement, specifically pleaded the existence of a bund approximately having a height of 6 feet which existed since time immemorial which fact is also forthcoming in the report of the Commissioner. That in light of the existence of this bund, the claim of the plaintiffs of they using the portion marked “ABCD”, which forms part of the property of defendant Nos.1 and 2, is impractical. That in light of the existence of this bund, the claim of the plaintiffs of they using the portion marked “ABCD”, which forms part of the property of defendant Nos.1 and 2, is impractical. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the First Appellate Court. He submits that since the physical features of the property were clearly established beyond reasonable doubt, the First Appellate Court ought to have accepted the same and rejected the case of the plaintiffs. (c) Referring to the commissioner’s report, he submitted that the Commissioner has categorically noted the existence of a cart road at point “E” and “F” as well as a pathway at point “K” and “J”, which are located on the property belonging to defendant Nos.5 to 9. By ignoring this material evidence on record, the First Appellate Court erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, he prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the suit to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel Shri Pranav Badagi, appearing for the plaintiffs, submitted; (a) That the plaintiffs had specifically made out a case, both in their pleadings and in the evidence of having acquired a prescriptive easementary right of way over the portion of the property marked as “ABCD”, forming part of the land belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2. He pointed out that the vendor of the plaintiffs, who sold the properties to them in the year 1955, was also examined as PW2. Further, the defendants did not cross examine PW1, and though PW2 was cross- examined, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. Nothing suggested regarding the existence of the bund on the property of defendant No.1. (b) That no contrary evidence was brought on record, and since the case of the plaintiffs remained unchallenged, the First Appellate Court rightly took note of these aspects of the matter and decreed the suit as sought for. (c) That the Commissioner’s report contradicts even the sketches produced by defendant Nos.1 and 2, and therefore, the First Appellate Court rightly discarded the Commissioner’s report. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 16. Heard. Perused the records. 17. In terms of Section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882, the plaintiffs are required to plead and prove that they have been using the portion of land as of right peacefully and openly without any interruption for the past 20 years. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 16. Heard. Perused the records. 17. In terms of Section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882, the plaintiffs are required to plead and prove that they have been using the portion of land as of right peacefully and openly without any interruption for the past 20 years. 18. In the present case, the claim of the plaintiffs is that they have been utilising and using the portion of the property marked as “ABCD” forming part of the land belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 2 uninterruptedly ever since they acquired their properties under the sale deed executed in the year 1955 . It is also their case that even prior to the purchase, their predecessors in title were utilising the said portion of land now held by defendant Nos.1 and 2. As such they have acquired prescriptive right of easement of way over the said portion of land. 19. In support of their pleadings, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1 and also examined their vendor as PW2. PW1 was not cross-examined by defendant No.1. Therefore, his evidence remained unimpeached. PW2, the vendor of the plaintiffs, who was aged about 90 years, the day when he was examined has withstood the test of cross- examination. He has categorically deposed that the land in possession of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was being used, and continues to be used, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the land now held by plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 do not dispute that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said land, having purchased in the year 1955. 20. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties and in the absence of cross-examination of PW1 by defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as the failure to discredit the testimony of PW2, the First Appellate Court rightly accepted the case of the plaintiffs that they had established their prescriptive right of easement over the portion of property marked as “ABCD”. In the absence of any contrary evidence or material brought on record, no fault can be found on first appellate court in this aspect of the matter. 21. In the absence of any contrary evidence or material brought on record, no fault can be found on first appellate court in this aspect of the matter. 21. As regards the grounds urged in the appeal by defendant No.1 concerning the First Appellate Court discarding the report of the Court commissioner, it is settled position of law that though the commissioner’s report forms part of the Court record, the report and the evidence of the Commissioner must be assessed and appreciated like any other evidence made available by the parties. The report of the Commissioner and his evidence do not by itself constitute substantive evidence. The same has to be appreciated accepted by corroborating the other evidence available in record. [ Praga Tools Corporation Ltd., Vs. Mahboobunnissa Begum (Smt) and others , [ (2001) 6 SCC 238 ] 22. It is further important to note that the pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiffs are in consonance with the hand sketch produced along with the plaint. Defendant No.1 has also produced a hand sketch along with his written statement, indicating the route allegedly used by both the defendants and the plaintiffs to access their respective lands. What is necessary to note in the said sketch is the portion marked between the letters “A” and “D” which, according to the defendants, as pleaded in paragraph 6 of the written statement, is the bund having the height of about 6 feet that has existed for over 100 years. The existence of this bund is claimed by the defendant to be an impediment to the use of plaintiffs of the area marked “ABCD” as a pathway. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the hand sketch produced by the defendants along with the written statement and the sketch attached to the Commissioner’s report, submitted that the existence of the said bund is depicted even in the Commissioner’s report, thereby making it impossible to accept the claim of the plaintiffs of they having acquired prescriptive right of easement over the area marked as “ABCD”. However, this submission cannot be accepted for the reasons that even according to the hand sketch produced by defendant No.1, the alleged bund purportedly runs from West to East (or vice versa) at the point marked “A” and “D” in the sketch having a height of 6 feet. However, this submission cannot be accepted for the reasons that even according to the hand sketch produced by defendant No.1, the alleged bund purportedly runs from West to East (or vice versa) at the point marked “A” and “D” in the sketch having a height of 6 feet. No such bund is shown in the Commissioner’s report; The Commissioner’s report, however, points out the existence of a bund at point “P” and “Q” which runs North to South (or vice versa) with the height and width as 3 feet by 3 feet; Except for the reference to the bund in paragraph 6 of the written statement and as shown in the hand sketch, no further evidence has been led in this regard. Even in the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence of DW2 there is neither any mention whatsoever with regard to the bund as claimed, nor was any suggestion regarding its existence was made to PW2 during his cross-examination. Thus, the defendants have failed to show the existence of the bund as pleaded at paragraph 6 of the written statement and as shown in their hand sketch. 24. Moreover, except stating the height of the bund at points “A” and “D”, there is no details of its width and length. The existence/dimensions of the bund noted in the Commissioner’s report do not correspond to those alleged by defendant No.1, either in the written statement or in the sketch, as referred to above. 25. Further the Commissioner has pointed out existence of a pathway along the lines marked “K” and “J”, which apparently leads through the southern side of property of defendant Nos. 5 to 9. The Commissioner also noted the existence of a cart road at points “E” an “F”, which belong to some person, who is not a party to the suit. 26. Under these circumstances, the First Appellate Court rightly declined to accept the commissioner’s report, which cannot be found fault with. In the absence of appellants/defendants pointing out any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 27. The substantial question of law raised above is answered accordingly. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court are confirmed. 28. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed off.