N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the original defendant of the Civil Suit No. 125 of 1971 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Gondal who was pleased to decree the plaintiffs suit. In the Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1974 filed by the present appellant_ original defendant in the District Court at Rajkot the learned Assistant Judge at Gondal was pleased to substantially confirm the decree but modify it a little in respect of some detail. Hence the original defendant has preferred the present second appeal. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid suit for a mandatory in junction directing the defendant-appellant to remove the construction made by him touching the southern wall of the plaintiffs eastern house to the extent of 10 from east to west because the said construction interfered with the plaintiffs right of dropping eaves on the defendants property. The learned trial Judge had also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the discharge of rain water from the eaves of the plaintiffs eastern house towards the south in the property of the defendant to the extent of 10 east to west. The learned appellate Judge directed the removal of that much construction which obstructed projection of eaves of the roof of the plaintiffs in the length of 4 covering the length of southern wall within the land of the defendant with a view to enable the plaintiffs to project their eaves and to discharge water of their eaves on the property of the defendant. ( 3 ) THE position of the houses of the parties is no longer in controversy. The plaintiffs had purchased that property in the year 1944 as per the sale deed Ex. 45. The vendors were the trustees of the Swaminarayan Temple at Gondal who had retained with them the defendants present property which was purchased by the defendant on 28-6-67 as per the sale-deed Ex. 62. Ever since the purchase the eaves of the plaintiffs were protruding beyond their wall and the rain water used to fall on the defendants land. The plaintiffs alleged that they had acquired this easement right pursuant to the deed and also pursuant to the continuous enjoyment of that right uninterruptedly ever since 26-10-44 by prescription also. 62. Ever since the purchase the eaves of the plaintiffs were protruding beyond their wall and the rain water used to fall on the defendants land. The plaintiffs alleged that they had acquired this easement right pursuant to the deed and also pursuant to the continuous enjoyment of that right uninterruptedly ever since 26-10-44 by prescription also. They stated that the defendant had put up a structure after purchasing the property and while doing so he had attempted to remove the eaves of the plaintiffs in the disputed land of 10. He was served with a telegraphic notice and also a registered notice but he ignored the same and high-handedly removed the eaves which were projecting on his land. He constructed a cement concrete beam just in front of the wall and proceeded ahead with the construction of a terrace above the said beam. The plaintiffs therefore instituted the suit to get a declaration of their right and for a mandatory injunction to get removed the obstruction caused by the defendant. ( 4 ) BOTH the courts below have found as a matter of fact that ever since 26-10-44 when the plaintiffs had purchased the property they were have their eaves for the purpose of discharge of rain water. Both the courts below also have held that this was being done as of right as an easement and without any obstruction or hinderance from anyone including the predecessors-in-title of the defendant. This being essentially a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by me. ( 5 ) MR. Modi the learned advocate for the appellant however urged that the easement rights that might be there in old times had come to be lost when the trustees of the Swaminarayan Temple purchased the property now with the plaintiffs and also retained with them the property now with the defendant. This cannot be gainsaid. However after those trustees sold the house now with the plaintiffs a right would start accruing. Full 20 years period had passed by and the eaves continued to project and drop rain water from the roof of the plaintiffs and on the property now with the defendant. Mr. Modi however urged that by virtue of sec. 37 of the Indian Easements Act 1882 the Trustees who were held to have granted that right as per Ex. Full 20 years period had passed by and the eaves continued to project and drop rain water from the roof of the plaintiffs and on the property now with the defendant. Mr. Modi however urged that by virtue of sec. 37 of the Indian Easements Act 1882 the Trustees who were held to have granted that right as per Ex. 45 were not entitled to create an easement that would enure for all time to come. In my view sec. 37 is misunderstood by Mr. Modi for the appellant. Sec. 37 is limited to those cases where the grantors title to the servient heritage is either contingent on some condition or limited in some duration. The phrase from a cause which preceded the imposition of an easement goes with the verb ceases. This section therefore means that if a person whose rights to the servient heritage are likely to cease because of some reason which eventuality is existent at the time of imposition of an easement the said easement will not enure further beyond the period during which that grantors right exists. Various illustrations appended to sec. 37 make this position crystal clear. The trustees of the Swaminarayan Temple are held by both the courts below on the interpretation of Ex. 45 to have granted the easement right to their vendee the father of the plaintiffs. When they granted this easement right there was no cause which would make them lose their right to the servient heritage. It is therefore evident that sec. 37 is erroneously invoked by Mr. Modi for the appellant. ( 6 ) MR. Modi then urged that the document Ex. 45 has been misread and misconstrued by the courts below. I do not agree. It is specifically mentioned in the document Ex. 45. that the rights of passage etc. were granted to the vendee. In the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below concluded that this etc. was referring to other easement rights like dropping rain water from eaves which were necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the property sold. It is specifically mentioned in the document Ex. 45. that the rights of passage etc. were granted to the vendee. In the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below concluded that this etc. was referring to other easement rights like dropping rain water from eaves which were necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the property sold. However this is not very material because the evidence establishes as a matter of fact that for more than 20 years falling within two years before the institution of the suit the plaintiffs father and after his death the plaintiffs had been enjoying this easement right uninterruptedly as an easement and as of right without any let or hinderance from any quarters. Their right therefore at any rate by prescription stood firmly established. 7 In above view of the matter I find little merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .