JUDGMENT : KANHAIYA LAL, J.:— The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have acquired by prescription a right to irrigate from the wells in dispute. Their allegation was that the wells in question had been constructed by the defendants jointly with them but they failed to prove that they had contributed to the expenses of the construction of those wells. The Courts below found that they have been irrigating certain fields from those wells partly from 1304 and partly from 1307 fasli, that is, for a period of twenty years prior to the suit, whenever irrigation was needed, and that they had acquired a prescriptive right to irrigate those fields from those wells. It is urged on behalf of the defendants appellants, that the plaintiffs ought not to have been granted any relief on a ground not set up in the plaint and that the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish that there was a continued enjoyment for twenty years prior to the suit. In the plaint, the allegation put down by the plaintiffs undoubtedly was that they were the joint owners of the wells in question, but they had also mentioned that they had all along irrigated the plots owned and possessed by them from the wells in dispute since the time of their construction without any obstruction or interference on the part of any of the defendants. They referred in support of their statement to the entries in the revenue records wherein the said enjoyment of the right of irrigation is said to have been noted. They further averred that they had legally acquired a right of irrigation from the wells aforesaid. Their suit was thus based practically on two different grounds, of which only the latter found favour, with the Courts below. As observed in Narendra Nath Barari v. Abhoy Charan Chattopadhya, [1907] 34 Cal. 51 : 4 C.L.J. 437 : 11 C.W.N. 20 : 1 M.L.T. 364 (F.B.) a suit is not liable to be dismissed because the plaintiff claims in the alternative over the same plot of land both rights of ownership and of easement. 2. As regards the period during which the right of irrigation has been enjoyed a statement was prepared by the trial Court showing that certain plots enjoyed the benefits of irrigation from 1304 and 1307 fasli. 3. 2. As regards the period during which the right of irrigation has been enjoyed a statement was prepared by the trial Court showing that certain plots enjoyed the benefits of irrigation from 1304 and 1307 fasli. 3. The revenue records for all the subsequent years were not filed. But from the entries made in such records of which copies were filed, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the right of irrigation was enjoyed without any interruption or obstruction for requisite period. The lower appellate Court observed that it was not shown that if there were any temporary cessation, it was due to any action on the part of the defendants, and that it may well be that omission to take water may have been due to the fact that there may have been no need for it. Explanation II of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act of 1882, lays down that nothing is an interruption within the meaning of that section unless there is an actual cessation of the enjoyment by reason of an obstruction by the act of some person other than the claimant. As held in Koylash Chunder Ghose v. Sonotun Chung, [1881] 7 Cal. 132 : 8 C.L.R. 281 the enjoyment necessary to qualify for a right of easement, is something very different from actual user. In order to establish a right to an easement, the enjoyment of it must continue for twenty years; but in the case of discontinuous easements, this does not mean that the actual user is to continue for the whole period of twenty years. On the contrary, there may be days and weeks and months, during which the right may not be exercised at all, and yet during all those days and weeks and months, the person claiming the right may have been in full enjoyment of it, when necessary. In Budhu Mandal v. Maliat Mandal, [1903] 30 Cal. 1077 it was similarly held that an easement may be established in respect of a right to cause river water to flow across the servient tenement on to the dominant tenement for the purpose of irrigation by means of embankments erected on the dominant tenement. It is immeterial whether the excercise of the right was continuous, provided it was excercised for the statutory period, during seasons of draught, when it could be taken advantage of. It is immeterial whether the excercise of the right was continuous, provided it was excercised for the statutory period, during seasons of draught, when it could be taken advantage of. In Ghasiram Mandal v. Asirbad Mahto, [1911] 13 C.L.J. 670 : 15 C.W.N. 259 : 9 I.C. 69 it was similarly held that if the water of a tank was always used for irrigating the defendant's lands and there was a user by the defendant whenever it was necessary, for a period of more than twenty years, the right to irrigate from the tank would be deemed to have been substantially enjoyed for the requisite period. 4. The decision in Hollins v. Verney, 13 Q.B.D. 304 : 53 L.J., Q.B. 430 : 51 L.T. 753 : 33 W.R. 5 : 48 J.P. 580. is not applicable, because there the question related to a right of way and there was evidence to show that between certain intervals the way was occasionally stopped up. 5. The defendants have failed to show that there has been an actual interruption in the exercise of the right of irrigation or that the plots in dispute were during certain years irrigated from other sources. There may have been no irrigation because of excessive rainfall or because of the land in question having been allowed to be fallow in certain years. In any case, in the absence of any proof of interruption, the plaintiffs are entitled to a prescriptive right to irrigate their land from the wells in question, as they have been doing since 1304 and 1307 Fasli. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.