- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The hearing has been concluded. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:- The plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit being Title Suit No. 148 of 1976 which was placed before the learned Additional Court of Munsif, Contai and renumbered as Title Suit No. 24 of 1986. in such suit the plaintiff prayed for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs alleged right of easement over a certain plot No. 206 and also a decree for permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendant/appellant by filing a written statement. The learned Trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1986 passed in the said T. S. 24 of 1986 decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent. The defendant/appellant filed Title Appeal No. 479 of 1986 which was placed before the learned 1st Court of Additional District Judge, Midnapore and the said learned Judge by judgment and decree dated 27 January, 1988 dismissed the said appeal, being Title Appeal No. 479 of 1986.
(2.) The defendant/appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court by way of filing the present Second Appeal being S.A. 159 of 1989.
(3.) The following are the substantial questions of law which were framed by this Court on which this appeal has been heard. (1) Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court committed a substantial error in practically disposing of the entire appeal only on the basis of the fact that DW2 has stated in his cross examination that during the rainy season all the "ails" and "Jar lands are submerged in water when there is nothing on record to prove that such "ails" and "Jal" lands cannot be used at all. (2) Whether or not the Learned Lower Appellate Court committed a substantial error of law in dismissing the title appeal when there is no finding that the necessity to use the defendant's land is an absolute necessity and the plaintiff cannot enjoy his property without going through the property of the defendant at all times: (3) Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court committed any substantial error of law in not considering the fact that two separate plots of lands comprised in two different khatians were acquired by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively by purchase and there was no severance of a single tenement.;