JUDGMENT :- The appeal filed by the plaintiff is against the decree of the Courts below dismissing the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from letting out water through the plaintiff's properties. 2. Ext. C-1 is the report and the plan filed by the Commissioner. Plaint A schedule item belongs to the plaintiff and he is in possession. Though plaintiff is the owner of the B schedule, he had leased it to the 1st defendant's father, after whose death the lease hold right devolved on the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant assigned his rights to the second defendant who is now in possession of the B schedule item. The C schedule property is in possession of the 1st defendant having obtained the same on lease from the 3rd defendant who is the owner. The case of the plaintiff is that water from the C schedule is let into the B schedule and from there to A schedule thus causing damage to A and B schedule items and it is therefore necessary to prevent the defendants from committing such damage. 3. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below. I am satisfied that the disposal of the suit by the appellate Court is not satisfactory and a fresh disposal is necessary. 4. It is alleged in the plaint that to the west of the A schedule property there is a thodu and the plaint A schedule item lies to the west of the B schedule property and to the east of the B schedule lies C schedule item. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the water from the C schedule item was allowed to flow only through the property lying to the north of the C schedule and into the thodu lying to the east of Paulos property and the water from the C schedule property was not flowing through A and B properties. These questions are covered by Issues 2 and 3 in the suit. The main contention of the defendants was that the owner of the C schedule property has acquired a right of easement to allow the water from the C schedule to flow through A and B schedule. These questions are covered by Issues 2 and 3 in the suit. The main contention of the defendants was that the owner of the C schedule property has acquired a right of easement to allow the water from the C schedule to flow through A and B schedule. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that there was originally a permanent bund between B and C schedule items which was destroyed by the defendants for the purpose of allowing the water from the C schedule to How through A and B schedule. There is also no case by the defendants that it is only the surplus from the C schedule that is flowing into B and C schedule items. The learned Judge seems to have been influenced by the fact that it is only the natural water from C schedule that flows through A and B schedule items since there is no other outlet of water this cannot be prevented. The principle of law is thus stated in Gibbons v. Lenfestey, (1916) 113 LT 55 : (reported in AIR 1915 PC 165) : "Where two contiguous fields belonging to different proprietors, one of which stands upon higher ground than the other, nature itself may be said to constitute a servitude on the inferior tenement, by which it is obliged to receive the water that falls from the superior. If the water which would otherwise fall from the higher ground insensibly without hurting the inferior tenement, should be collected into one body by the owner of the superior in the natural use of his property for draining or otherwise improving it, the owner of the inferior is without the positive constitution of any servitude, bound to receive that body of water on his property." But that is not the case set up by the parties and that is also not discussed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has not also considered the other points covered by the other issues in the suit. 5. I, therefore, set aside the judgment and the decree of the Court below and remand the case to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.