The courts below have concurrently found that the appellant has miserably failed to establish the plea of easement of necessity as claimed. The courts below have uniformly noticed that there exists an alternate pathway immediately on the western side of the plaint A schedule property (dominant heritage). The pathway is separated from the property only by a compound wall which can easily be dismantled for the required extent. Added to this is the fact that the appellant gifted one cent of property to his wife on the northern side. There is no case that the appellant and his wife are separated and this one cent of land can be used as direct access to the public road. The courts below have also decreed the suit for injunction filed by the respondents in regard to the property allotted to them under the partition deed. The suits already underwent a reward once and the finding of the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence.
2 RSA No. 1109/2014 There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE