JUDGMENT

Jack, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of plaintiffs right to irrigate their lands ka (1) and ka (2) of the plaint, from the tank described in Sch. kha, by easement and prescription and as an ancient grant and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting obstruction and further for compensation for loss caused by the defendants not allowing the plaintiffs to irrigate their lands from the tank. The trial Court decreed the suit in part against the contesting defendants 1 to 3 and ex parte against the rest, allowing the plaintiff to irrigate ka (2) land from the tank. This appeal is by the defendants as regards ka (1) land for which also the plaintiffs suit was decreed by the Court of appeal below. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to irrigate the land ka (1) in consequence of a grant from the landlord to be inferred from immemorial user, the finding being that the land ka (1) is being irrigated from the disputed tank from time immemorial.

2. This appeal is argued on the ground that to prove a lost grant something more than immemorial user must be proved, viz., it must be shown that there i