( 1 ) THESE appeals are on behalf of the plffs. appellants. Second Appeal No. 1571 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 103 of 1941. In this appeal the plffs. pray for a declaration of their right of pasturage over the banks of a tank known as Chapra tank and for a further declaration of a right of burial on the southern part of the northern bank of the said tank. They also pray for a permanent injunction restraining the defts. from interfering with the exercise of their right of pasturage and right of burial as aforesaid. The suit was framed under Order 1, R. 8, Civ. P. C. on behalf of the villagers of a village known as Debgram. The right was based on immemorial user and was claimed under three heads, viz. , (i) easement of necessity, (ii) lost grant, and (iii) customary right.

( 2 ) THE other S. A. No. 1572 of 1943 arises out of Title Suit No. 105 of 1941. The plffs. are the same in this suit and the right is claimed over the banks of a tank called Boaria tank. The right that is claimed is one of pasturage as in the other appeal.

( 3 ) THE defence in both the suits is a denial of the existence of the right of pasturage and of the right of burial as claimed in the aforesaid two suits.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the villagers of the village Debgram used to graze their cattle on the banks of the two tanks. But the trial Court refused to declare the right of pasturage on the ground that a right of easement of necessity cannot be claimed on behalf of the villagers of a particular village. The right cannot be claimed on the basis of a lost grant, because a floating body of persons cannot claim a right on this ground. The right of pasturage on the ground of custom was negatived because in some other tank, known as Barapukur, the owner of the tank re-excavated the same and threw earth on the banks of the tank interfering with the right of pasturage and this indicated that the right was not uniformly claimed. In the result, the right of pasturage was negatived. As regards the right of burial, it was held by the trial Court that the right cannot be claimed in law as a prescriptive easement, or on the basis of lost grant, or on the ground of customary right because the right claimed was unreasonable, the exercise of the right being prejudicial to the health of the people of the locality. The two suits were accordingly dismissed.

( 5 ) AGAINST the decree's of dismissal, the plfls. preferred appeals to the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court observed that it was in substantial agreement with the findings of the trial Court, and maintained the decrees of dismissal on grounds similar to those on which the trial Court had proceeded. The plffs. have accordingly preferred these appeals.

( 6 ) MR. Sarkar, for the appellants, has first dealt with the right of pasturage which was claimed in the two suits. He has argued that the right of pasturage could be claimed on behalf of the plffs. , first on the basis of a lost grant, secondly as an easement of necessity and thirdly as customary right. He has also contended that the right of burial was available to his clients on similar grounds in Second Appeal No. 1571 of 1943. We shall deal with these contentions now. We prefer, however, to deal with the second ground raised by him, viz. , that the right of pasturage can be claimed as an easement of necessity.

( 7 ) IT is submitted that there are as many as three hundred heads of cattle in the village and that the pasture lands, apart from the disputed banks of the tank, are insufficient to sustain the cattle of the village. It is, therefore, argued further that the right of pasturage is necessary for the preservation of the cattle of the village and should be decreed as an easement of necessity. This contention is obviously unsound. An easement is a privilege annexed to some property to be enjoyed over some other property. A right of pasturage claimed by the villagers is claimed by them as residents of a defined