Bind Basni Prasad, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise out of the same suit. Sudarshan Dayal, the plaintiff appellant in Second Appeal No. 843 of 1948, is the Owner of a house in the city of Budaun. It abuts upon a thoroughfare on one side and a blind lane on the other. In regard to the lane his allegation was that it was big Sahan Darwaza and upon it flew the rain water and sullage water from his house. To the north of this lane is the house of the defendant, Nanhey, who is a appellant in Second Appeal No. 469 of 1949. The latter has placed certain obstructions upon this lane. He has built a chabutra and has set up a hub upon it. The plaintiff claims a right of way on this land and on these allegations be brought a suit for the following reliefs: "(a) By a perpetual injunction the defendants may be restrained not to interfere with the plaintiffs right of way through the lane in dispute and he be ordered to remove the hut. (b) The defendants may be directed to remove the obstruction placed in the way of the flow of water which they have caused by placing a stone at the mouth of the drain. (c) The chabutra constructed by the defendants may be demolished."
(2.) The defendants claimed the ownership of the land in the lane, denied having stopped any drain from the plaintiff's house and asserted that the plaintiff had no right of passage upon the land in dispute.
(3.) Learned Munsif framed the following issues: "(1) Did the defendants encroach upon the sahan land of the plaintiff in building their chabutra? If so, how much land? (2) Is the land in question the property of the defendants or a public lane? (3) If so, has the plaintiff acquired a right of easement to flow his water and also to pass on this land by means of prescription? (4) Have the defendants put the hub in the plaintiff's passage";