JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The difficulties of satisfactorily dealing with a case of this nature are enhanced by the circumstance that the case came before us upon second appeal and we are therefore precluded from ourselves looking and enquiring into the evidence. It has been found by the Lower Appellate Court that the two mohanas, which mean openings, at the north-western and southeastern coiners of the tank in question and the two nalas or channels at the south-eastern corner have existed from time immemorial and that the Plaintiffs and their predecessors have been irrigating their lands from time immemorial by the water of the tank through these mohanas and nalas. The Judge says this: "In these circumstances, when the Plaintiffs and their witnesses swear that these two nalas as well as mohanas existed from time immemorial and that they and their predecessors have been irrigating their lands from time immemorial by the water of the tank through these mohanas and nalas, I think that their evidence ought to be accepted." This is a finding to the effect I have stated. As I understand the facts, the tank has a mohana at the north-western corner through which the water flows into the tank and a mohana at the south-eastern corner through which the water flows out of the tank into the two nalas and through those two nalas which are well defined channels, the water flowed and has been used for the purpose of irrigating the Plaintiffs' land. Upon these findings of fact, I think we may reasonably hold that a presumption arises that this enjoyment had an origin which conferred a right and for this proposition I' refer to the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Ramessur Persad Narain Sing v. Koonj Behari Pattuk ILR (1878) Cal. 633. During the course of the argument I entertained some doubt as to whether the principle of the English cases, such as Arkwright v. Gell (1839) 5 M. and W. 203, Birmingham, Dudley and District Banking Co. v. Ross (1888) L.R. 38 Ch. D. 295, Wood v. Waud (1849) 3 Exch. 748, Burrows v. Lang (1901) 2 Ch. 502 and Greatrex v. Hayward (1853) 8 Exch. v. Ross (1888) L.R. 38 Ch. D. 295, Wood v. Waud (1849) 3 Exch. 748, Burrows v. Lang (1901) 2 Ch. 502 and Greatrex v. Hayward (1853) 8 Exch. 291, did not apply, though these cases seem not to be quite in accord with the view entertained in the Indian Courts in such cases as Kisto Mohun Mookerjee v. Juggurnath Roy Joogee (1869) 11 W.R. 236 and Toolsee Dass Kobeeraj v. Bhyrub Lal Tewaree (1867) 8 W.R. 311. But on the whole, I think, upon the findings of fact in the present case, it is governed by the principle of the Privy Council authority (1) to which I have referred. I therefore think that in substance the decree of the Lower Appellate Court is right and that it ought to be affirmed and that there ought to be a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the water from the tank flowing through the mohana at the south-eastern corner and that the Defendant ought to be restrained by injunction from closing up either the mohana at the north-western corner through which the water flows into the tank, or the mohana at the south-eastern corner, through which it flows out of the tank, into the two channels I have referred to. Decrees will be made accordingly in all the three cases. The Appellant must pay the costs of these appeals. Stevens J. 2. I concur.