1. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the concurrent decision of the courts below dismissing her suit. She has claimed a decree for removal of certain obstructions, described in the plaint as genras and shown in the sketch map attached thereto which have impeded the facility of irrigation she is entitled to. She has also asked for a direction for filling up certain openings made by the defendant in the Pinds bearing survey plot Nos. 235 and 205 fully described in the plaint and for a consequent permanent injunction against the defendant.

2. The case made out in the plaint is that certain lands about 12 acres in area in village Beladih, fully described in Schedule I of the plaint belong to the plaintiff and have been irrigated with the water of a reservior, Gordhoi Ahar, bearing plot Nos. 401 and 403 to 406 of village Khap. The Ahar receives its water from another reservoir, Tikrahiya Ahar, bearing survey plot Nos. 235 to 237 besides some other plots by cutting pind of the Ahar bearing plot No. 237/281. The plot Nos. 235 to 237 are recorded in the survey papers as Khajana Pani, that is, water reservoir and stored water extends on plot Nos. 238, 246 and 204 and 244, also which form the bed of the Ahar. It is said that the defendant wrongfully put genras (obstructions) in such a way that water now cannot collect in Tekrahiya Ahar and he is attempting to convert the Ahar into paddy field. Since the schedule I lands belonging to the plaintiff are entirely dependent on this source of irrigation the plaintiff is suffering heavy loss. To achieve the same purpose, the defendant has- also cut a portion of the find of the Ahar which he is not entitled to do. The overt acts of the defendant-have been explained in the plaint with reference to the map.

3. The defendant filed a written statement challenging the plaintiffs claim and pleading that Gordhoi Ahar is an independent storage of water depending on rain water and Thartha water from the eastern and southern side and the survey entry mentioning supply of water from Tikrahiya Ahar is erroneous, Slope of the land is from south to north and flow of water as mentioned in the survey records or in the plaint is not possible. The topography has been explained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the written statement The allegations made against the defendant to obstruct the now of water have been denied.

4. The trial court held that the survey .records dealing with the right of irrigation, which is also described as Fard Abpashi, was correctly prepared, but for more than 20 years before the institution of the suit, the flow of water from Tekrahiya Ahar to Gordhoi Ahar is stopped and for that reason the suit had to be dismissed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, although not agreeing with all the findings of the trial court, confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal.

5. Mr. Mazhar Hussain, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, has challenged the decision of the lower appellate court on the ground that it has failed to raise the presumption of correctness of the Fard Abpashi which has vitiated its decision. He has also urged non-consideration of the vital materials by the lower appellate court, errors of record committed by it and other legal infirmities in the impugned judgement.

6. The relevant entries mentioned plot Nos. 235 to 237 as constituting Tikrahiya Ahar and the fact that water from this Ahar is taken by cutting plot No. 237/381. The entry dealing with Gordhoi Ahar indicates that about 10 acres of lands are irrigated therefrom. It is also mentioned in column 10 that water comes in this Ahar from plot No. 239. The learned Additional District Judge has taken a view different from that of the trial court on the question of the correctness of the Fard Abpashi. He has held that the entry was not correctly made but in so doing he appears to have adopted an approach which cannot be approved. He has said that although "the entries in the survey record of righ