JUDGMENT :- This appeal is one of two connected appeals by a defendant from two concurrent decrees of the Courts below ordering him to remove obstructions which prevented the plaintiff respondent to use certain parnalas. The plaintiff claimed an easementary right. The defendant resisted both suits and contended that the plaintiff had not perfected his rights by prescription. He also pleaded that the easement, if any had been imposed by a mortgagee of the servient tenement in collusion with the plaintiff and had been extinguished on the redemption of the mortgage.

2. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiff had perfected his easementary rights and that the easement in each case had not been imposed by any mortgagee.

3. It is however, argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate Court erred in holding, in appeal No. 258 of 1963 before him, that the plaintiff had acquired a prescriptive right to discharge on the appellant's land filthy water containing faecal matter and other filth from his latrine. I am inclined to agree. Mr. Ambika Prasad admitted that the plaintiff's sweeper cleans the latrine every day with water and the faecal matter and filth is discha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document