JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1968 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Orai. 2. Simple case of the plaintiff-respondent was that they used to discharge the water of their Pamala through the land of the appellants as of right. The appellants denied their right. The trial court found that the plaintiff has a right to flow the water of the Parnala through the appellants land. The trial Court further found that the water of the Pamala used to flow through a defined channel. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that if the water flowed through the said defined channel there would be damage to their house as there would be dampness. To meet this situation the trial court directed the plaintiffs-respondents to make the Nali/ Channel pucca within a month. Both parties filed appeal against the decree passed by the trial court. The appellants appeal was dismissed, but the plaintiff respondents appeal was allowed and the direction indicated above given by the trial court was set aside. 3. Shri L. Chandra, Advocate for the appellants has urged only one point in this appeal and it is this that the lower appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the direction given by the trial Court to the respondents. He placed reliance on Section 25 of the Indian Easements Act. This Section lays down that the expenses incurred in constructing works, or making repairs, or doing any other act necessary for the use or preservation of an easement, must be defrayed by the dominant owner. 4. In this connection reference may be made to the other provisions contained in Chapter III of the Act in which Section 25 occurs. Section 20 which is the first section in this Chapter lays down that the rules contained in this Chapter are controlled by any contract between the dominant and servient owners. In the present case no such contract as regulates the exercise of the easement in question has been set up or proved. Therefore, the rules in this chapter will have their force. In the present case no such contract as regulates the exercise of the easement in question has been set up or proved. Therefore, the rules in this chapter will have their force. Then Section 22 lays down that a dominant owner must exercise his right in the mode which is least onerous to the servient owner, and when the exercise of an easement can without detriment to the dominant owner be confined to a determinate part of the servient heritage, such exercise shall, at the request of the servient owner, be so confined. In the instant case it has been held by both the Courts below that the respondents had a right to flow the water of their parnala through a defined channel. There is no finding that this exercise of easement was onerous or it could be minimised in any other manner. Therefore, Section 22 is not applicable. 5. Section 23 lays down that subject to the provisions of Section 22, the dominant owner may, from time to time, alter the mode and place of enjoying the easement, This section also is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Then Section 24 lays down that the dominant owner is entitled, as against the servient owner, to do all acts necessary to secure the full enjoyment of the easement, but such acts must be done at such time and in such manner as, without detriment to the dominant owner, to cause the servient owner as little inconvenience as possible; and the dominent owner must repair the damage (if any). This Section indicates accessory rights to secure full enjoyment of an easement. In the present case, the respondents are not desiring to do any act to secure the full enjoyment of the easement. They simply wish to exercise their right to flow their water of the parnala through defined channel which is in existence for the last many years. There is no evidence in the case that the said channel had broken itself. In that case the respondents could be called upon to repair the said channel. On the other hand the allegation is that the appellants were threatening to obstruct the flow of water and were attempting to obstruct the flow of water by raising the level of their court-yard. In these circumstances, Section 24 does not come into play. In that case the respondents could be called upon to repair the said channel. On the other hand the allegation is that the appellants were threatening to obstruct the flow of water and were attempting to obstruct the flow of water by raising the level of their court-yard. In these circumstances, Section 24 does not come into play. However, Section 24 shows that it is the duty of the dominant owner to do all acts necessary to secure the full enjoyment of the easement. In the present case the respondents are not desirous of doing any act. They simply want that their water should flow as it used to flow since a long time. 7. Then comes Section 25 which has been indicated above. An easement as a right in the property of another. It is a right which imposes certain restrictions on the ordinary use of the property by the servient owner as the right exists solely for the benefit of the dominant owner. Section 25 simply lays down that it is just and equitable that he must defray all the expenses which are necessary for the up-keep of the easement. Therefore, the dominant owner has to carry out all repairs and do all such acts on the servient tenement as are necessary for the use and preservation of the easement. This he is bound to do in his own interest. Besides this there is no other obligation on him. In the present case, it appears that there was no pucca drain from before. It means that the water of the respondents paranala used to flow through a kuchha drain since a long time. During all this period the appellants never complained that any damage was caused to their property. They never called upon the respondents to repair the drain. It will be noticed that the servient owner and the dominant owner each has a separate and distinct interest which they should use and preserve at their own costs and neither of them is bound to spend for the other. 8. Shri L. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that previously the land in question was lying open, that later on the appellants constructed a Bara or enclosure and thereafter a house. 8. Shri L. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that previously the land in question was lying open, that later on the appellants constructed a Bara or enclosure and thereafter a house. In these circumstances, if the appellants desire that their house is not damaged by the flow of water through the kuchha drain, they should better make pucca drain at their own costs. In these circumstances, the respondents cannot be called upon to construct a pucca Nali. Had a pucca Nali been in existence from before and it had gone out of repairs then only the respondents could be called upon to repair the same. In that situation Sec. 25 would have helped the appellants. On the facts of the present case, Section 25 does not come up to the help of the appellants. In this view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the lower appellate Court cannot be said to be wrong with the result that no interference can be made by this Court. 9. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs incurred in this Court is made.