JUDGMENT G.N. Das, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the Defendants. The Plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the villagers of Mouza Sankrail have no right to catch fish from the tank described in Schedule Kha of the plaint. The defence was that the disputed tank was a mere depression and that water accumulated in it during the rains and dried up during the summer season. The Defendants pleaded that they have been catching fish in the depression for a very long time and have acquired thereby an indefeasible right. The Plaintiff's title to the depression was not disputed. The trial Court dismissed the Plaintiffs suit. On Plaintiff's appeal the lower Appellate Court has decreed the Plaintiffs' suit, on the ground that it is unreasonable to hold that the Defendants who form a fluctuating body of persons would catch fish in the disputed tank the result whereof would be to destroy the rights of the owner. Mr. Chakravarty appearing for the Appellants contends first that the right is not unreasonable because the Plaintiffs never grew fish in the disputed tank but the fishes which grew in the tank are gifts of nature; secondly, that the right can be acquired by prescription and on the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the Defendants have been exercising the right for a long time the prescriptive right has been made out. 2. I shall dispose of the second contention first. In the written statement the Defendants did not specify the basis on which they claim a right of fishing by long user. It has been pointed out in the case of Chunilal v. Ram Kishen Sahu I. L. R. 15 Cal 460 F. R. (1888) that an intermediate body of persons like the villagers of a village can claim a right only on the basis of custom. Prescriptive right by a fluctuating body of persons is not allowable in law. This ground, therefore fails. 3. Prescriptive right by a fluctuating body of persons is not allowable in law. This ground, therefore fails. 3. As regards the first ground it has been held by this Court in the case of Lutchmeeput Singh v. Sadaulla Nushyo I. L. R. 9 Cal 698 (1882) that a right of fishing in a bill, claimed by the villagers of a certain village is unreasonable because the effect of the exercise of the right by the villagers would be to destroy the right of the owner of the bill and to prevent the owner from exercising his own right of ownership. This case has been followed ever since by this Court and it must be taken as settled that a right which is a customary right and which has the effect of destroying the rights of the servient owner cannot be regarded as reasonable in law. The fact that the Plaintiff did not grow fishes of his own, even, if true, would not affect the position. If it is a gift of nature, the benefit of that gift enures to the owner of the tank and the fishes which grew there in course of nature become the property of the owner of the soil. Therefore, the Defendants who claim to exercise the right of catching fish must be deemed to have acted in a manner which would destroy the rights of the owner of the tank to enjoy a right of fishing so far as these fishes are concerned. This contention must also be over-ruled. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.