The judgment established that the worship of a deity on another's land and drawing water from a neighbor's well did not constitute a customary right of easement if not essential for the beneficial enjoyment of one's own land.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal against the decision of the Additional Civil Judge of Etawah dismissing their suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to enter the defendants land for the purpose of worshipping a deity installed on a chabutra and for drawing water from a well. In their plaint the plaintiffs alleged that the chabutra with the deity and the well were situate on their land, but they abandoned this case during the trial and claimed a customary right of easement. The trial court held that the plaintiffs had established their right and issued an injunction against the defendants. In appeal the learned Judge held that no customary right had been proved and he dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have now come to this Court in second appeal.

( 2 ) I have read the judgments of the courts below and heard Mr. S. S. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants. I think no customary right of easement is established. An easement is declined in section 4 of the Easements Act as a right which the owner or occupier of land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in of upon, or in respect of, certain other land not his own. To establish an easementary right, the plaintiff must prove that he is the owner or occupier of a land for the beneficial enjoyment of which he has certain rights over the defendants land. In this case the plaintiffs claimed the right to enter the defendants chabutra for the purpose of worshipping a deity installed there. I do not think that the worship of a deity on anothers land, is necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of ones own land. If this were so, any body who has been going to an adjoining temple for the last 50 years for the purpose of worshipping a deity could claim an easementary right against the temple. The plaintiffs had to establish that their beneficial enjoyment of their own land was obstructed by being prevented from worshipping the deity installed on the defendants land, and this they have failed to do. Similarly the plaintiffs have net proved that the right to draw water from the defendants well was necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of their, own land. It is not their case that they have been using this water for irrigating their lands. In India it is quite common, in villages as well as towns, for the owner of a well to allow neighbours to draw water for domestic purposes but this is a license which has nothing to do with the beneficial enjoyment of any land. The plaintiffs suit must fail on this ground also.

( 3 ) MOREOVER, I agree with the finding of the learned Judge that the plaintiffs evidence in support of the right of easement is unsatisfactory.

( 4 ) LASTLY, Mr. Tewari placed before me a document purporting to be a compromise between the parties and asked the Court to give effect to it. The so-called compromise bears the stamps of the local Gram Panchayat; Learned counsel for the respondents denies that there has been any compromise. There is no application before this Court to give effect to any compromise and I cannot take any notice of a document which may have been signed by unknown persons who are not before this Court.

( 5 ) THE appeal is dismissed with costs.

.