RAM SAHAI Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit in which the prayer was that the plaintiffs have a right to discharge the rain water from five spouts from the roof of their house. As regards three of the spouts, the defendants admitted the plaintiffs' right. The dispute was about only two of the spouts. Learned Munsif decreed the claim. The defendants went in appeal and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claim in respect of spouts C and D shown in the sketch map forming part of the decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The finding of the learned Civil Judge is that the roof of the room from which these two spouts discharge water was formerly flat. The water dropped in the defendants' courtyard. Sometime thereafter, the flat roof was converted into a thatched roof with two thatches-one discharging water from its eaves towards the plaintiffs' courtyard and the other towards the defendants' courtyard. The thatched roof remained in existence for more than two years. After that, about twelve years ago, the flat roof was again made with two spouts discharging the rain water upon the defendants' land. Again there was a thatched roof in place of the flat one and the thatched roof has now been reconverted into a flat one discharging water through the two disputed spouts. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs have been discharging water upon the defendants' land for more than twenty years. For some period the water has fallen from the eaves of the thatch and for some period through the two disputed spouts. Learned Civil Judge thinks that as the discharge of water through the two spouts has not been proved for twenty continuous years, the right of easement has not been established. It is necessary to examine the relevant statutory provisions on the subject.

(3.) Section 15 of the Easements Act, 1882, provided for the acquisition of easements by prescription. Paragraph 3 of that section runs as follows: