JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for demolition of a wall and for possession of the land covered by It. There was a further relief for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from making any construction. 2. The case with which the Plaintiff came to Court was that she had been the owner of an abchak existing between her house and that of the Defendants as indicated by letters ABLM in the map attached to the plaint, that the Plaintiff's drain drained out water into this abchak and her latrine water from the latrine BCDE also flowed through it. She alleged that she had been exercising the right of the flow of the water for more than twenty years and the construction of the wall by the Defendants had blocked the flow. 3. The Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the claim on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the land ABLM and that there never was any abchak at the place suggested by the Plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the latrine BCDE was a new construction and the Plaintiff had not acquired any easement either to flow the rain water or the latrine water through ABLM, which was claimed by them as their land. 4. The learned Munsif held that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the disputed land; it, on the other hand belonged to the Defendants 1 and 2. He also found that, though at one time the rain water of the Plaintiff's roof flowed into the disputed land, nevertheless the Plaintiff's kothas or roof had not been in existence for the last seven years and so whatever rights she had, she has lost. As regards the latrine it was held that it was constructed only about seven years before the suit and no right of easement could be acquired by the Plaintiff. The learned Judge affirmed the decision of the learned Munsif. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant in this second appeal does got challenge the finding of the Court below as regards the latrine. He, however, contests the finding as regards the abchak land and also as regards her right to flow the water of the kotha or the roof. The learned Judge affirmed the decision of the learned Munsif. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant in this second appeal does got challenge the finding of the Court below as regards the latrine. He, however, contests the finding as regards the abchak land and also as regards her right to flow the water of the kotha or the roof. The finding that the abchak land belongs to the Defendants and not to the Plaintiff is a finding based upon the evidence on the record and is not open to challenge in this second appeal and I mast except it. 6. The learned Counsel takes his stand open Section 47 of the Indian Easements Act and contends that the right could be lost if it had not been enjoyed for an unbroken period of twenty years and, as the period in this case is only seven years, there can be no extinction of the right This argument loses sight of the fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Act which says Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years, next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates it contested. 7. The view which the Courts below have taken is in consonance with that taken by this Court in Sultan Ahmad v. Waliuullah (1912) 10 A L J 227 Chamier, J. in deciding the case observed as below: (a) The meaninig of the findings on the first and third issues is that the Defendants enjoyed the old western right of way over plot No. 1640 as an easement and as of right for more than twenty years up to within 16 or 17 years of this suit and then abandoned it, or at all events the sou hern part of it in order to go direct to a new doort opened by them. (b) It seems to me that the result of these findings is that the defence fails. The fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Easements Act, seems to render it impossible to acquire a statutory prescriptive title to an easement unless and until the claim thereto has been contested in a suit.... The fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act applies to both continuous and discontinuous easementi. 8. The fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Easements Act, seems to render it impossible to acquire a statutory prescriptive title to an easement unless and until the claim thereto has been contested in a suit.... The fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act applies to both continuous and discontinuous easementi. 8. This judgment was affirmed, on appeal, u/s 10 of the Letters Patent, by a Bench of this Court in a case reported in Muhammed Maruf v. Sultan Ahmad (1914) 12 A.L. J. 415. The learned Judges have put it, if i may say so with respect, very clearly. Say they: Under Section I5 of the Easements Act, under which alone the right of easement was claimed, the period of user must be twenty years or more ending within two years before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested. 9. The result is that, even though the | Plaintiff or her predecessor might have been flowing the water of the roof through the abchak land for a period of twenty years or even more, nevertheless if they ceased to exercise that right "within two years, next before the institution of the soft wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested", that right fails. I think the view taken by the Courts below is right and I dismiss this appeal with costs.