Cornish, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant. He has been held liable by the lower appellate Court to damages for the loss to the plaintiff of three years cultivation of his fields on the ground that this loss was caused initially by the defendants wrongful obstruction to the plaintiffs right to bund a water channel. The facts are that plaintiff and defendant had a dispute over the formers right to bund this channel. The plaintiff put up a bund and the defendant removed it. The defendant then laid an information under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On that information the Magistrate, after taking statements from both parties, made an order that the plaintiff should not raise a bund or divert the water from the channel until he had obtained a decree or order of a competent Court adjudging him to be entitled to raise such bund. A subsequent suit by the plaintiff resulted in his right to bund the channel being upheld. The Magistrates order was made on 21st November, 1924, and plaintiffs claim for damages is in respect of the loss of cultivation of his fields for the years 1925, 1926 and 1927. The allegation in the plaint in para. 4 is:

The defendant afterwards inst