- (1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs. The appellants suit was decreed partly by the trial court as the trial court declared that the plaintiff has right to have the way for Aaraji no. 48/1 from portion ABCD but dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for another way for the same Aaraji no.48/1 which was claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that during rainy season, the other way is not available to them. The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the way marked as ....... is the only way.
(2.) According to the learned counsel for the appellants though the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed for the same agricultural field having Aaraji no.48/1 and his right of way from the area marked ABCD in the map has been recognised but the courts below committed serious error of fact in denying the relief as claimed in issue no.2. It is submitted that the two courts below have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and the evidence of the parties.
(3.) The respondents also submitted cross-objection against the decree which has been granted by the two courts below. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the plaintiffs failed to prove their right as claimed by them on the basis of their easementary right. It is submitted that the plaintiffs came with totally a false case of having a way since last more than 100 years. It is submitted that the two courts below committed error of law in recognising the way from the land marked ABCD.;