JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court, the sole defendant came up with these two appeals.

2. Two suits were filed by two different plaintiffs for a mandatory injunction for removing the pipeline unauthorizedly drawn through their property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but in appeal the First Appellate Court decreed the suit directing removal of pipeline unauthorizedly drawn through the property of plaintiffs by granting a mandatory injunction, against which these appeals were preferred by the defendant in both the suits.

3. Admittedly, the pipelines were drawn through the property of the plaintiffs. The defendant claims that it was drawn 25 years ago and this was provided for the purpose of drawing and discharging water through the property of plaintiffs. In the written statement, no specific right either by way of easement or otherwise claimed. In both the courts below the question of prescriptive right of easement as well as the right of quasi easement and easement by necessity were discussed may be based on the argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but in appeal it was found that