Miller, J.

1. The plaintiff prays for an injunction to prevent the defendants from cutting a channel from a tank from which he waters some of his fields, so as to deprive him of the water. He alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were threatening to construct a dam to prevent the water from flowing to his fields, but this they denied.

2. The District Munsif, as I understand him, held that the plaintiff has a right to a supply of water from the pond in question, to the exclusion of the defendants and on that ground issued the injunction prayed for. The District Judge holds that the plaintiff has no right to the water of the pond, though he had been in the habit of taking it through a channel for sometime not exactly determined but less than twenty years. He dismissed the suit.

3. In Second Appeal it is contended that on the finding of the District Judge we ought to hold that the plaintiff, though he has not by prescription acquired a right to take the tank water through his channel, is nevertheless entitled, having been for sometime taking it in that way to prevent the defendants, who have also no right to take the water, from taking it so as to deprive him of his supply and