JUDGMENT

1. This and the connected appeal arise from the same suit in respect of a plot of land lying between the homesteads of the parties. On 15th March, 1927, the defendants-appellants enclosed the plot by putting up boundary walls. The plaintiff sued for possession of the land by removal of the boundary walls in the right of ownership. In the alternative, he claimed a decree for his right of easement of way through his southern door and the right to discharge water from his drain across the land in dispute and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the said rights.

2. The parties are neighbours. The plaintiff purchased his house under a sale-deed dated 31st May, 1912. The defendants acquired their house under an earlier sale-deed dated 21st April, 1893. A portion of the defendant's house fell into ruins more than 20 years before suit and. the land remained vacant for this long period till the defendants constructed the boundary walls.

3. On 12th January, 1927, the parties had referred their disputes to the arbitration of five persons including the umpire. An award was given on 15th March, 1927. The award was against the plaintiff who impugned its validity on the ground of fraud and collusion.

4. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they and not the plaintiff, were the owners of the land in dispute, that the suit was barred by Section 21, Specific Relief Act, that the plaintiff's claim having been founded upon rights of ownership and of easement with reference to the same property, was bad in law and liable to dismissal and that the plaintiff had acquired no easement of way through his southern door which had been opened only a few months before suit nor any right in respect of his drain which was constructed by the plaintiff with the permission of the defendants about 14 years before the suit.

5. The Court of first instance held that the plot in dispute belonged to the defendants and not to the plaintiff. The award dated 15th March, 1927, was set aside. The Court declared that the plaintiff had established a right of easement of way and his right to a flow of water through his drain across the land in dispute. Accordingly it ordered as follows:

Let an injunction be issued directing the defendants to allow passage to the plaintiff from his back door up to the bamboo clump leaving a way two feet wide and not to interfere with the plaintiff's rights of easement in future. Amin's map to form part of the decree.

6. Both the parties appealed. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court, that the plot in dispute belonged to the defendants and not to the plaintiff. It accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's appeal except by a variation as to the width of the passage:

An objection has been raised that the two feet passage allowed by the Munsif is very small. As I have ordered the plaintiff to cover over his drain, I think it only fair to increase his passage to three feet instead of two feet in width as ordered by the Munsif.

The defendant's appeal was also dismissed in substance, on the finding that the plaintiff had established his right of easement in respect of the way and the drain as claimed by him. As to the drain the decree of the trial Court was varied in so far that the plaintiff was directed either to cover the drain with stone slabs or to insert drain pipes across the length of the drain "through the present construction of the defendant's house.

7. Both the parties are dissatisfied with the decrees by the Courts below. The defendants have filed two appeals. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections. The cross-objections are directed against the finding, negativing the plaintiff's title to the land in suit. This finding rests upon evidence. The learned Advocate for the respondents has failed to satisfy this Court that this finding is vitiated by either improper reception or rejection of evidence or by any misapplication of law or procedure. The cross-objections, the