appellant had failed to prove his case regarding easementary rights. The onus to prove that land was owned and possessed by him was upon the appellant. However, the appellant failed to prove the same. It was for the appellant to show that he was owner of area falling in Khasra No.105 and that disputed portion was part of Khasra No.105. In the present case, the ownership of the appellant with regard to house constructed on Khasra No.105 was not disputed. The dispute was that the disputed area i.e. 14'x100' does not fall in Khasra No.105 but falls in Khasra No.143 and 143/1. While upholding the judgment of the trial Court, the Lower Appellate Court relied upon the demarcation report Ex.PX given by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court and Ex.DW-4/A demarcation report given by the Naib Tehsildar wherein it was mentioned that immediately after metaled road, there was a kacha portion/strip which was a part of Khasra No.143 and 143/1 and Khasra No.105 starts after this kacha portion. In both these reports, it has been mentioned that after kacha portion, Khasra No.105 falls in abadi Deh. From the aforesaid reports, it was established that the disputed property does not fall in Khasra No.105. The onus to prove the aforesaid fact was upon the appellant. The demarcation reports are of no help to the appellant. Thus, in the absence of any evidence in favour of the appellant, no fault can be found with the findings of the Courts below in view of the evidence as discussed above. On one hand, the appellant was claiming to be owner in possession of the suit land and on the other hand, he claimed easementary rights over the disputed portion of land. Both pleas are contradictory in nature. However, in the present case, the appellant has failed to establish his rights as owner as well as his easementary rights over the disputed property. No material evidence in support of his case with regard to easementary right has been placed on record. The appellant has failed to prove the necessary
