MODI, J.— This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respon-dents for injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to irrigate their fields bearing Khasra Nos. 390, 390/1, 391/2, 392/1, 392/2 and 407 situate at village Dantri from the well bearing Khasra No. 389.

2. The plaintiffs case is that they have been irrigating their fields with the water drawn from the well bearing Khasra No. 389 for more than 100 years as of right and without interruption. It is not in dispute that the said well is owned by the defendants. Formerly too, it was owned by the defendants and their ancestors in the capacity of their being Jagirdars of village Dantri. The defence of the defendants is that the irrigation of the plaintiffs fields from the said well was permissive and in lieu of certain payment made by the plaintiffs. Both the courts below on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondents have been irrigating their fields form the water drawn from the said well for a period of more than 45-50 years and further that they paid no amount to the defendants for using the water of the said well. This is a pure finding of fact and I see no reason to disturb that finding.

3. While arguing the appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants that respondent No. 1 Girdharsingh was admittedly the Jagirdar of village Dantri before 1956 when his jagir was resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act, 1952. That being the case, it is argued that upto 1956 Girdharsingh was not only the owner of the said well but he was also the owner of the lands irrigated by the plaintiff-respondents. It is further argued that since the ownership over the lands and the well vested in one and the same person and the relations between the parties being that of the landlord and tenant, the question of immemorial exercise of right of irrigation does not arise so as to justify the inference of a legal origin of such enjoyment. The learned counsel laid considerable stress on the fact that the plaintiffs have been paying chachi-lagan of the lands irrigated by them. The argument, though attractive, is wholly untenable. As pointed out above, it stands proved that the plaintiffs fields have been irrigating their fields from the said well for the last half a century uninterruptedly. As the relationship between the parties was that of the landlord and the tenant, it is but natural that the tenants must have paid the rent to the landlord for the lands cultivated by them. So nothing turns out on the fact that the plaintiffs paid chachi-lagan to the dependents. It is true that a tenant cannot acquire a prescriptive right of easement in land or well belonging to his lessor but he may claim a right of easement based on immemorial user, for, in such a case, there is a strong presumption that the enjoment of the right had its origin under an agreement or grant. It has been laid down by the Judicial Committee in Rajrup Koer vs. Abdul Hossain(l) that when enjoyment of a right has continued uninterrupted for a long series of years, such enjoyment should be attributed to a legal origin and the court should presume a grant or agreement. The relationship of the landlord and tenant does not render inapplicable the above consideration Again, in Bhupendranath vs. Anandaprasad (2), there was a tank belonging to the landlord and it was proved that from long time the tenants of the lands surrounding the tank had irrigated their fields with water drawn from the tank Relying upon the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rameswarprasad vs. Kunjabehary(3), it was held that inference could legitimately be drawn that the tenants had acquired an easement to irrigate their lands from the water drawn from the tank under a presumed grant. The same principle was applied in Madhabdass vs. Jageshchandra (4) and Babujan vs. Ramjad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document