1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decree of a learned Judge of this Court granting the plaintiffs an injunction against the defendants from interfering with the water channel which runs from the well of the plaintiffs, across two plots 1296/1 and 1296/3 which belong to the defendants, and from which water irrigates the fields of the plaintiffs. Originally all these fields and the well were joint property, and there was a partition in 1907 in which the well was allotted to the plaintiffs and the intervening fields to the defendants, and then come certain fields allotted to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed in the plaint that it was necessary for them to irrigate their fields from this well, and an issue was framed by the trial Court (issue 2):
Have plaintiffs been enjoying a right of easement to flow water through the channel and did defendants obstruct them from using it? Were the plots in question irrigated through that channel?
2. On this issue the trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs, and the lower appellate Court did not disturb that finding of fact. It accepted that finding, and then proceeded to find as a point of law that such user by the plaintiffs before the partition could not give them the right which they claimed after the partition. Moreover the lower appellate Court stated:
Now in this case it is admitted that the water has to be taken through two fields, namely 1293/1 and 1296/3 which belong to Chittarmal (defendant).
3. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that there was no easement, and the learned Judge of this Court has decreed it on the ground that the plaintiffs obtained this right from Section 120, Land Revenue Act. We do not consider that the case for the plaintiffs can be supported by Section 120, Land Revenue Act, But we consider that the case for the plaintiffs can be based on Section 13(e), Basements Act, which lays down:
Where a partition is made of the joint property of several persons:
(e) if an easement over the share of one of them is necessary for enjoying the share of another of them, the latter shall be entitled to such easement.
4. On the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court it is necessary for the plaintiffs to have this easement of a water channel over the two fields of the defendants in order that the plaintiffs may irrigate their own fields, as they were irrigated before the partition. Accordingly we uphold the decree of the learned Judge of this Court granting the plaintiffs an injunction against the defendants, and we dismiss this Letters Patent appeal.