The main legal point established in the judgment is that a change in the mode of enjoyment of an easement does not necessarily constitute an interruption of the right, as long as the easement has been peaceably enjoyed without interruption.

In accordance with my order dated 5th September, 1972, the Additional District Judge has returned the findings called for on the question as to whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to relief (F) or, in the alternative, relief (G) contained in the plaint. The findings are in favour of the appellant; and counsel for the 1st respondent has preferred objections to the findings.

1-A. The learned Additional District Judge has recorded :

"The defendant does not dispute the existence of the canals on the 4 sides of the plaint B schedule not only at the time of the institution of the suit, even at the time of the controversial original central channel in B Schedule was in existence. So also he has no serious dispute that after the destruction of the central channel in B schedule water from plaintiff's A schedule property was being carried and drained out towards south through the north, south, west and eastern canals."

Adverting to the question how far the plaintiffs can claim the relief (F) or alternatively relief (G) claimed in the amended plaint, the learned Judge observed:

"Upon considering the allegations in the plaint as well as the evidence of P.W. 1. Plaintiff's case that the canals were dug up by the defendant in pursuance to the mediation cannot be wholly accepted as the probability is even before that the defendant had either started digging up the canal or was contemplating to have such canals all round his property. Whatever that may be, the fact remains as is disclosed by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the defendant gave a gentleman's assurance that water could be drained out from these canals in substitution of the original channel. P.W. 2 who is the brother of defendant swears that when plaintiff made a complaint to him about the action of the defendant he approached the defendant and asked about the same. Then he stated to him that he would be digging a canal on the western side of the B schedule property and a portion of the said canal had already been completed and through that canal water from A schedule property could be drained out."

He eventually recorded:

"I have no hesitation to hold that there has been in fact an understanding arrived at in regard to the substitution of these canals on the north, west, south and east of plaint B schedule property in the place of the original channel filled up, for draining out the water from plaintiff's A schedule property."

X X X X X X

However, I would like to add that this (G) relief claiming restoration or reinstatement of the original channel running in the middle of B schedule is neither feasible nor practicable inasmuch as restoration of the original channel in the B schedule, at this stage, no doubt will again result in cutting this holding into two parts which in the interest of convenient enjoyment of the property of the defendant as a compact holding should as far as possible be avoided. Upon considering the balance of convenience of parties as well considering the fact that this original channel has been filled up long time past and canals on the outskirts of the property have been substituted in its place, granting of relief (G) appears to be either not desirable or one that could be avoided as far as possible in the circumstances of the case. For all that, if for any reason, granting of 'F relief is found to be not possible or expedient, alternative 'G' relief, the plaintiff is entitled to be granted viz, restoration of the original central channel in B schedule property. To put it more precisely plaintiff is entitled to have either of the reliefs 'F' or 'G' preferably 'F' relief."

2. On these findings, counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the claim of the plaintiff was to drain water through a well-defined channel, namely, through the middle channel that ran through the A and B schedule properties, that an easement to this effect not having been established by enjoyment for the statutory perio