Odgers, J.

1. In this case water rights in respect of a piece of land which will be referred to as 19/9 are in question. This plot, together with the adjoining plot at the north 132/1 were at one time in the ownership of one person called Shankara Bhattar. On the 6th October 1916, this person sold 132/1 to the defendants under Ex. I, and on the 17th March 1917, he sold 19/9 to the plaintiff by Ex. A. Now the plaintiff alleges that the mamul practice from time immemorial is to irrigate 19/9 by water originating on 132/1, that 19/9 is a bale and that the only source of supply of water to it is that just referred to. The case is complicated by the fact that the contract for sale to the plaintiffs, which preceded Ex. A, is earlier than the transfer deed to the defendant Ex. I. The first question argued is as to whether or not this is an easement of necessity as has been found by both the lower Courts. The Munsif says that 19/9 is a bale field as admitted by the defendants and was classified as No. 1 nanja, double crop in the settlement register of the village. He also observes that two crops were being raised on the land till recently and that the spring which was alleged by the