- (1.)THIS is plaintiffs second appeal and arises out of a suit for declaration founded on right of easement and also for mandatory injunction that was decreed by the Munsiff, Doda, but on appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Bhaderwah.
(2.)BRIEFLY stating the facts of the case are as under: There is a residential house of the plaintiffs -appellants situate in Khasra Nos. 969, 970 -min at Nagar, Bhaderwah. Land comprising Khasra No. 976 -min adjacent to these survey numbers belongs to the defendants. The plaintiffs claim a right of way over the land in khasra No. 976 -min. They also claim right to use the water of the spring located in the said survey number. The plaintiffs have averred that they have been enjoying this right of easement over the land of the defendants and they have been using the same as their pathway and also have been enjoying the water of the spring icr over twenty years. The defendants have raised obstruction thereon by erecting a wooden fence and thus have been and are preventing the plaintiffs from exercising this right of easement.
(3.)THE defendants resisted this suit on the ground that no such right of easement is available to the plaintiffs. The defendants have outright denied the right of easement, and also the right of the plaintiffs to use water of the spring located in the land of the defendants.
The suit was originally brought in the court of the Sub -Judge Bhaderwah, wherefore it was transferred to the court of Munsiff, Doda, who on a consideration of the evidence that was led by the parties in the case and alter hearing arguments, found that the plaintiffs right of easement was established and that the defendants have wrongfully obstructed the pathway. The Munsiff consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed by them. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Bhaderwah, found that no such right existed in favor of the plaintiffs, on the other hand the evidence led by the plaintiffs negatived their claim. The. Requirements of Sec. 15 of the Easement Act have not been fulfilled. The learned District Judge also held spot inspection and after making personal observation found that the right of easement of the plaintiff was not established. He therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this order of the District Judge, the plaintiffs have come up in further appeal to this court.