1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs have instituted this Second Appeal impugning the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs / appellants filed suit for injunction with the averment that plaint A schedule property belongs to the 1st plaintiff, who is claimed to be in possession of the same from 1969 onwards and that a building in the property is being used as go - down and office for the rubber business run by him. That B schedule property belongs to the 2nd plaintiff, which lies on the southern side of A schedule property and that the 2nd plaintiff is residing with family in the building situated therein. That C schedule property is said to be a water course through the southern side of A schedule and eastern side of B schedule, which is said to have a length of 80 ft. and width of 2.5 feet. That it is the only way for flow of water from the eve - drops of the plaintiffs' building and also waste water from the bathroom and kitchen portion. That the plaintiffs and the predecessors have been enjoying this water course for flow of water as easement, peaceably openly and as of right for the last more than three decades and that they have