JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, allowing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Haveli, Azamgarh and decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :

3. The plaintiff brought a suit on the allegation that the defendants stopped the flow of the drain of the plaintiff's house and therefore, prayed for an injunction.

4. The defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the house in question was a new one and the defendants had not stopped the flow of the plaintiff's Nabdan as alleged by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the Nabdan never flowed as alleged by the plaintiff.

5. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff had no right to flow his Nabdan as alleged by him and dismissed the suit.

6. On appeal, the learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had perfected his easementary right to flow his Nabdan and the flow of the same had been stopped by the defendants. With this finding, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned lower appellate Court recorded a contrary finding of fact and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree. This argument has no force in it. After discussing the evidence, the learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the rain water of the house of the plaintiff flowed towards south and not towards North as alleged by the plaintiff but this Nabdan always flowed towards North and the plaintiff never raised the level of his Sahen. The learned lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's Nabdan flowed in the direction as alleged by the plaintiff for more than twenty years on the plot of the defendants and that the plaintiff had acquired easementary right. There is therefore no contradiction in the finding of fact arrived at by the learned lower appellate Court. This finding of fact is based on the evidence on the record. The learned lower appellate Court inspected the spot in order to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties. The plaintiff's evidence was in consonance with the spot situation and therefore it was rightly believed by the learned lower appellate Court. Thus the matter that the plaintiff had flowed the Nabdan as alleged by him for more than twenty years and that he had acquired easementary right to flow the water of the Nabdan in the manner alleged by him is concluded by finding of fact.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a legal point and contended that under Sections 4 and 6 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, even if the plaintiff acquired easementary right, the same came to an end under the provisions of the aforesaid Secs. 4 and 6

of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 6 (a) reads as below :-

"S. 6 (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries :

(i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren) grove-land, forests (whether within or outside village boundaries), trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or groves), Fisheries, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites hats, bazars and melas (other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply) and

(ii) in all sub-soil in such estates including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not, shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances".

9. Much stress was laid on the word "encumbrances" and it was contended that the word "encumbrances" included easementary right as well and, therefore, under Section 6, the easementary rights also came to an end. In support of this argument, reliance was also placed on Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act where the word "encumbrances" was used

Click Here to Read the rest of this document