Both the courts below have dissected and analyzed the evidence in great details and have recorded cogent reasons to arrive at concurrent finding in favour of plaintiffs-respondents regarding disputed passage. In copy of the Jamabandi Exhibit P-4, disputed land of Khasra No.92/80(0-8) has been depicted to be as passage. Aksh Shajra Exhibit P-5 also depicts the disputed site as passage. Even site plan got prepared by defendants' predecessor depicted the existence of the disputed passage. Report of Local Commissioner made within a month after the filing of the suit depicted that defendants had constructed new wall of old bricks with mud and thereby blocked the disputed passage. Report of another Local Commissioner depicted encroachment done by the defendants over the disputed passage. Even in site plan Exhibit D-1 produced by the defendants, existence of drain for flow of dirty water through disputed site has been depicted, although in the written statement, the defendants specifically denied the existence of the said drain. Existence of the said drain would also depict that the disputed site is passage and is not property of the defendants. Infact the defendants have also not claimed the disputed site to be their property but claimed to be in possession thereof since the year 1978-79 by adverse possession. The defendants have, however, failed to establish their said plea. There are also three to four septic tanks of different persons in the disputed site. This circumstance again depicts that the disputed site is a passage in which occupants of the neighbouring properties have made their septic tanks. If the property had been in possession of defendants since the year 1978-79, they would not have allowed the septic tanks of others to be made there. On the other hand, in towns, such septic
