1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff and defendant 1 are the owners of the adjoining premises, the plain-tiffs premises being to the west of: defendant 1s. A wall running north to the south separates the plaintiffs from the defendants, and the same belongs to defendant 1. The roof of the plaintiffs house has been resting on this wall. The defendant tried to pull down that wall, and the plaintiff instituted the suit which gave rise to this appeal for a declaration of his right to have the roof of his house rested on the wall and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from doing anything which would interfere with the right of support which the plaintiff claims. The learned District Judge of South Malabar recorded the following finding:

I agree with the findings of the learned District Munsif that both the wall and the house (plaintiffs house) are old and the roof must have rested on this wall for more than 20 years...it is not necessary for a person claiming an easement specifically to prove that there was no permission from the owner. It is sufficient if he proves user for more than 20 years. I find that the plaintiff has acquired an easement