Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The second objection is that the custom found by the Subordinate" judge is unreasonable, since the right claimed is a, right to obstruct the whole strearv. It is not unusual in this country for each of those who own lands adjacent to streams depending upon them for irrigation to take water by turns either for a certain number of days or hours.

20. In Palaniandi Tevan v. Puthirangonda Nadan (1857) ILR 20 M 389. it was held that no fixed period of enjoyment is necessary in law to establish a customary right to user may exist apart from a dominant heritage. In this case all the residents of a particular Village except the Neechars or Pariahs and Pallars had been using the water of a well and it was held that the plaintiffs by possessing houses and becoming residents had acquired a right of easement to use the water of the well. This seems to be a sufficient answer to this question which as I have said has now been raised for the first time. I agree with my learned brother that the Letters Patent Appeal must be allowed and the decree of the 1st Subordinate Judge restored. I agree with my brother with rgard to his order as to costs.