M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), is filed by the defendant in OS No. 154 of 1989 whereby the suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to let out the collected rain water or excess water from field to field from P marked property through D marked land and to drainage and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the right to let out water field to field and finally to drain. The Judgment of the trial court was confirmed in first appellate court in A.S No. 26 of 1997.

2. The parties in the appeal will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.S No. 154 of 1989, for convenience.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the above two reliefs contending that they are the owners of the land of an extent of Ac.1.98 cents in R.S No. 140/2 of Mahendrawada Village, which was shown as P in the plaint plan and the defendant is the owner of the land of an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in R.S No. 140/3, Ac.0.96 cents in R.S No. 139/1 and Ac.0.45 cents in R.S No. 139/2, which was shown as D in the plaint plan. It is situated towards Southern side of the plaintiffs land and there is a land of Gowreswaraswamy deity, Komaripalem in an extent of Ac.2.45 cents in R.S No. 141/1, towards Northern side of the plaintiffs land. There is an irrigation canal known as Nalla Kalava, running from West to East and there is also another canal called as Pilla kalava emanating from the main canal running towards South and the canal passing by the side of deitys land on the North-East and took turn towards Eastern side. There is an irrigation bode from the North-East corner of deitys land running from North to South, stops at the land of the defendant. There is another irrigation bode towards North-West, which is also running towards South. These two bodes emanates from Pilla Kalava, which are flowing towards South touching the East and West Corners of deitys land, running from the North to South and joins to Southern drainage channel. The irrigation bode on East is higher in level of the land of the plaintiffs.

4. There is a drainage channel towards South of the plaintiffs land. The excess water from the deitys land, from the land of the plaintiffs and from the land of defendant, flows towards South from field to field and finally enters into drainage channel, thus, excess water being let out from field to field and thus running from P marked land to D marked land and into drainage. The water letting out through a vent in the field bunds, and accordingly, they are enjoying the right to let out or discharge the collected rain water or excess water through the land of one another for the last more than 50 years. It is also the practice that to let out collected water from field to field and finally to bode which joins the channel known as Pilla Kalava, which emerged from the main canal. Thus, the plaintiffs perfected their right of discharge or let out excess or collected rain water by prescription, but the defendant did not permit the plaintiffs to let out or discharge the water and objected by raising a bund across the water flow, therefore, the plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations while contending that in the plaintiffs land, which is shown as A, A1, B1, B in the plan filed along with the written statement, there is a bode, as well as drainage adjoining to the land of respective adjoining owners, since a long time, likewise a bode towards Western side of defendants land is available to let out or discharge collected rain water or excess water. There was no practice of let out the excess water from the deitys land to plaintiffs land, from field to field towards South at any time and thereby the question of prescribing the right of easement under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 does not arise.

6. It is specifically contended that the