JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - In order to challenge the correctness of the orders passed by two courts below three submissions were made, (1) that on facts found by appellate court that appellant had been flowing Nali for last three and half years he has acquired easementary rights ; (2) that the appellate court committed error in not appreciating the oral evidence itself and (3) that the respondent having come out with a case that land from which the Nali of appellant flows belong to him the burden was on him to establish the same. According to learned counsel as every land in Gaon Sabha vests in State the lane also vested in it and appellant had a right to flow Nali from it. In the end it was submitted that Commissioners report had not been property appreciated. None of the submissions have any merit. It is well settled that A person can acquire easementary rights only if it is proved by him that he has been exercising right without permission for long period. The plea that he has been flowing Nali for the last three and half years can not be said to be sufficient for acquisition of a right. As regards non-appraisal of oral evidence by the appellate Court it is well settled that in appeal court is not required to assess evidence afresh. As regards burden of proof it has again no substance. It was for the appellant to establish that he had a right to flow Nali. As regards Commissioners report suffice it to mention that two commissions were issued and as report of first commissioner was not proper since it did not show Nali a second commission was issued. From map filed by Commissioner it is apparent that appellant was trying to flow Nali to certain extent from Land adjacent to Chabutra, which he could not do. Courts below, therefore, did not commit any error in dismissing suit. 2. In the result appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.