( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant before me. The respondents filed the suit for a declaration that the irrigation `bode marked in the plaint plan A, B, C, D is used by the plaintiffs for irrigating their land, and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said `bode. It was alleged inter alia, that the land of the plaintiffs R. S. No. 346 marked as `p in the plaint plan and the defendants land R. S. No. 345/1, marked as `q in the plaint plan, originally belonged to one family. On partition, plot `p fell to the share of the vendors of the plaintiffs and the plot `q fell to the share of the defendants predecessors-in-title. At the time of partition, for the purpose of irrigating plot `p the bode described as A, B, C, D was an easement of necessity. The plot `p was purchased under the sale-deed Ex. A-1 dated 31-5-39 by the plaintiffs. The existence of the bode is mentioned in the said sale-deed. The vendors of the sale-deed had agreed to widen the bed of the bode. The plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title were irrigating the land with the water that flows through the said A, B, C, D bode, for over the statutory