The legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants in the appeal. The suit was filed for injunction retraining the respondent 1 and 2 obstructing the plaintiff in using the plaint schedule property for drying of fishing nets and for the purpose of keeping and repairing of fishing nets. The case of the plaintiff is that the marginal property is owned by the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property is belonging to the defendants 1 and 2 was intended to be purchased by the third defendant. The plaint schedule property is back-water shore and it lies immediately north of the marginal property.

2. According to the plaintiff, he has acquired easement right by way of prescription for drying fishing nets and keeping the fishing boats and repairing them and the defendants have no manner of right or to obstruct him.

3. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have found that the plaintiff’s claim cannot be allowed in view of S.17 (a) of the Indian Easements Act. Section 17 (a) reads as follows:

"17. Rights which cannot be acquired by prescription. - Easements acquired under section 15 are said to be acquired by prescription and are called prescriptive rights