JUDGMENT Om Parkash, J. - This is a Second Appeal by the plaintiffs appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1977, of the learned Civil Judge, Dehradun, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for injunction. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs owned a building and vacant land. The vacant land was situated in the eastern side of the main building and that was transferred by the sale deed dated 21st December, 1970, to the defendants. The main building was transferred later on to the plaintiffs by the sale deed dated 25-3-1971, which was registered on 30th November, 1971. The soak pit and the septic tank of the main building which was transferred to the plaintiffs, situate in the open land, which was transferred earlier to the defendants, The defendants wanted to raise constructions on their open land. The plaintiff's apprehending the closure of the soak pit and septic tank brought the instant suit claiming injunction against the defendants that they be restrained from preventing the plaintiffs from using the soak pit and the septic tank. 3. The defendants contested the case stating that they are absolute owners of then land and on that they were not under any burden to allow any facility of the septic tank and soak pit to the plaintiffs. 4. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 5. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this second, appeal. The sole question for consideration in this appeal was whether the defendants purchased the open land in which the septic tank and soak pit are situated, with any rider. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Nowhere has it been shown that the defendants purchased the open land with the liability that they would continue to allow the facility of soak pit and septic tank to the occupants of the main building. This being so, the appellate court was right in holding that the plaintiffs had no right to use the septic tank and soak pit situated in the land of the defendant's which was transferred to them unconditionally and without any burden and liability of the septic tank and soak pit being used by the occupants of the main building. 7. This being so, the appellate court was right in holding that the plaintiffs had no right to use the septic tank and soak pit situated in the land of the defendant's which was transferred to them unconditionally and without any burden and liability of the septic tank and soak pit being used by the occupants of the main building. 7. The lower appellate court observed that the plaintiffs have ample open space for making alternative arrangement. Alternative arrangement will take some time. I, therefore, direct that the defendants will not prevent the plaintiffs from using the soak pit and the septic tank for a period of a months from the date of this order within which the plaintiffs will make alternative arrangement of drainage, soak pit and septic tank. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the above observation. The parties, however, will bear their own costs of this appeal.