JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore in A. S. No. 49 of 1955, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Vellore in O. S. No. 502 of 1953.

2. The facts of this case have been fully set out in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be recapitulated. The only point for determination is a point of law.

3. Both Courts below have come to the conclusion that a well which is the subject-matter of the controversy was the substantial source of irrigation for the lands which are now held by the defendants and which at one time along with the lands now held by the plaintiffs constituted one tenement. Is this substantial source of irrigation for the defendants lands an easement of necessity or a quasi-easement giving the defendants a right to use the said well ?

4. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that this cannot be described as an easement of necessity but that it could be described in the circumstances of this case as a quasi-easement and in regard to which he held that on account of the irrigation of this well water being discontinuous thou