SHEOGULAM SINGH Vs. RAMBAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit was decreed by the Court of first instance but has been dismissed on appeal. The parties are residents of village Koari, the plaintiffs house being situated on plot No. 2311 and the house of the defendants being situated on plot No. 2344.

(2.) To the east of these plots, there is another plot No. 2326 which is recorded in the khatian as the sahan of the defendantH The case of the plaintiff is that the entry in the khatian is incorrect and they claim that they and the other residents of the village have a right to use this plot as a rasta for themselves and for the bullock-carts as they have done so for a long time. The plaintiffs further claim that the defendants have no right to obstruct the flow of water from plot No. 2311 and other plots to its east, west and north as such water always used to flow through plot No. 2326 towards the south.

(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had no right of easement over plot No. 2326 but it also found that the plot in question had been used by the public as a. rasta for a long time and the defendants bad no right to block it by putting up tatti fencing. The learned Munsif also held that the defendants had no right to obstruct the free flow of water from the plots on the north of plot 2326 through that plot towards the south. When the matter however came up in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge of Muzaffarpur, he took the view that the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to prove that 2326 had been used by the public for a long time as a rasta was too vague and could not be accepted. He also found that the evidence regarding the plaintiffs right to discharge water into the disputed land was of similar description.