- (1.) THIS is second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for injunction.
(2.) THE suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed in the Court of Munsif Dausa, on 16th August, 1950, on the allegation that behind the shop of defendants was the open land of the plaintiff on which there was a Chhappar adjacent to the back side of the shop. It was alleged that the defendants had constructed a chobara over the shop, and two spouts had been kept for the flow of water of the roof of the chobara, and this water fell on the Chhappar of the plaintiff causing a nuisance. THEse two spouts were shown as A and B in the plan filed along with the plaint. The defendants' plea was that there were two parnalas on the roof of the shop, and the rain water falling on that roof used to flow towards the plaintiff's land for more than 20 years. When the defendant constructed a chobara over the roof of the shop, he kept the two parnalas in the same line as the previous spouts on the roof of the shop, and that no additional injury had been caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted one of the two parnalas on the roof of the shop to be old one, but not the other. The finding of the first appellate court is that the two parnalas on the roof of the shop were old ones, and the new parnalas for taking away the water of the roof of the chobara were in the same line as the lower paranlas. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that these were new parnalas, but the learned District Judge was of opinion that no additional burden had been inflicted on the servient tenement, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has come in second appeal. There is no doubt that the quantity of water which used to flow from the roof of the shop has not increased as the area of the roof of the chobara is the same as the area of the roof of the shop. What may possibly happen is that the increase in the height may make the flow of water at more distance on the plaintiff's land. The defendants respondents are agreeable to fix some sort of pipes so that the water flowing from the parnalas will not spread. The plaintiff should be satisfied with this arrangement. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. While the flow of the spouts of the defendants will continue towards the land of the plaintiff, the defendants will within three months fix metal or cement pipes so that the water from the spouts may not spread If the defendants do not fix the pipes, the plaintiff will be at liberty to request the court for such pipes to be fixed and to recover the cost from the defendants. There will be no order as to costs of this Court. . ;