B.N.BANERJI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, at the instance orthe defendants, is directed against an appellate decree affirming the decree passed by a learned Munsir.
(2.) THE suit, out of which this appeal arises, was for declaration of the plaintiff's right of passage over the land described in schedule 'Kha' to the plaint, acquired as an easement and for permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with that right of passage. The prayers as originally made in the plaint were subsequently amended and over and above the reliefs claimed, the plaintiff further claimed declaration of the plaintiff's right of passage over the disputed land as easement of necessity. According to the plaintiff, one Gourhari Das Naskar and certain other persons were owners of three plots of land, namely, c. s. plots Nos. 1518, 1519 and 1522 at Mouza Purba Barisa, within the Jurisdiction of Behala P. S., District 24 -Parganas. To the West of c. s. plots Nos. 1519 and 1522, according to the plaintiff, there is a passage, described in schedule 'kha' to the plaint, which is about 75 feet long from north to south and about 6 feet wide east to west. At a distant past (when I shall hereinafter try to determine), the Naskar owners of the aforesaid 3 plots settled or leased out c. s. plots Nos. 1519 and 1522, situate to the east or the passage, described in schedule 'kha' to the plaint, to Iswar Chandra Dutta and others at an annual rent of Rs. 6/4/ -. Iswar Dutta and others were the predecessors in interest of the defendants. Lalit Mohan Dey, who is the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff, purchased c. s. plot No. 1518 from the Naskar landlords, in the benam of one Gopi Nath Mullick, by a conveyance bearing the date 22 -5 -1933. Plaintiff alleged that the passage aforesaid started from a gate on c. s. plot No. 1518, at its northeastern corner, and proceeded towards the north, until it met and connected with Seal Para Lane. The plaintiff's claim is that he used to pass over the passage and thus acquired a right of easement thereon.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the passage was not, according to the plaintiff, included in the conveyance in favour of the predecessor in interest of the defendants, the finally published record of rights did not record the existence of any passage on the western side of c. s. plots Nos. 1519 and 1522, commencing from the northeastern corner of c. s. plot 1518, and in, this respect the c. s. record was said to be incorrect.;