This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court which has partly modified the trial Court judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case is as under:

3. The plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing Survey No.56/1, and the defendants are the land owners of the land located on the Northern side of the plaintiff land. The defendants land is 6 feet lower to that of the plaintiff's land. While so, the plaintiff who are irrigating their land through lower Bhavani Irrigation Project have the right to drain the excess water through the defendants land. It is essential as well as by custom and natural justice, the plaintiff right to let out the excess water into the defendants land as easement of necessity. While so, animosity arose when the plaintiff refused to sale his land to the defendants. So the defendants to cause inconvenience, denied the plaintiff's right to drain excess water into their property. Hence the suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction to the effect that the plaintiff has a right of easement to drain the excess water to the defendants property and restraining them from interfering the said right.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein, the allegations were denied. The averments that the land of the plaintiff is on a higher altitude and the defendants land is at a lower altitude denied. According to the defendants, the land of the plaintiff slopes down from West to East and South to North. The water from lower Bhavani Irrigation Project enters through Koppu Canal and from that Canal, water is taken to plaintiff land for irrigation. The water from the Canal flows towards East. Excess water drain at extreme East through EFG portion marked in the Commissioner's Report and the water joins the Canals on the East of the plaintiff land. The contention of the plaintiff that excess water flows through defendants land is false and the portion marked by the plaintiff has the drainage Canal is owned by the defendants and plaintiff have no right to releasing drain their excess water through the defendants property. The trial Court considering the pleadings have framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that they have right to drain excess water through defendants property located on the Northern side of the plaintiff's land?

(2) Whether the plaintiff where draining the excess water to the defendants land?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Injunction as prayed for? and

(4) what other relief?

5. On the above pleadings, for the plaintiff side three witnesses and seven exhibits were marked. On the side of the defendants two witnesses, and 6 exhibits were marked. The Commissioner's Report and Sketch were marked as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.

6. The trial Court after considering the evidence, allowed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred First Appeal and the First Appellate Court has formulated the following point for determination in the appeal.

(1) Whether the plaintiff has a natural right and easement right of necessity to drain excess water through the Canal rendering from West to East on the defendants land?

7. After re-appreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal holding that based on the Commissioner's Report and the evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff though entitled to drain the excess water into the defendant land, he cannot have the benefit of a declaration to drain the water through all parts of the defendants land. In alternate, the plaintiff can drain excess water through the Nilaviyal Vaikal in S.No.50/1 owned by the defendant. For the said purpose, the plaintiff has to arrange for 2 feet breath Canal along the Eastern boundary and Northern boundary of his land to drain the water. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff has prefer the Second Appeal. This Court at the time of admission has formulated the f