JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff who got a decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 200 from the Court of first instance which was reversed by the lower appellate Court. The suit was brought on the allegations that the house and the shop of the plaintiff have been enjoying the right of easement of support from the wall of the defendant's shop for more than 30 years, and that the defendant had altered the course of a deep drain bringing it close to the boundary of the plaintiff's land, with the result that the southern wall and the ground floor and the upper storey of the plaintiff's house along with a roof had fallen down. The facts as regards the cause of the damage is as follows:

The learned Munsif has come to the conclusion that the damage caused to the plaintiff's house and shop was chiefly due to the excavation of the nala. I agree with the learned Munsif in this finding.

2. But the lower appellate Court also came to the finding:

"There is no definite evidence to show that the period of 20 years had been completed before the alleged encroachment. I am of opinion that the plaintiff failed to establish any right of support for his building.

3. We may note that this