CHINTAMANRAO APPASAHEB PATVARDHAN Vs. RAMCHANDRA GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendant not to pass dirty water on the plaintiff's site, and for an order to close the mori more particularly referred to in the plaint. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff. Their decisions amount to a finding that the defendant has proved that he has the right to pass the water, as he has been doing.

(2.) It is not in dispute that such a right falls within the definition of an easement in Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act.

(3.) The lower Courts have also found that the defendant cannot bring himself within the terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act (V of 1882) which, so far as relevant, is to the effect that where any easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such easement shall be absolute; provided that the said period of twenty years shall be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested.