LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8th August, 1978 made in R. S. A. No. 181 of 1974 on the file of the Civil Judge, Haveri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1977 passed in O. S. No. 49 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Haveri. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are: plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of easementary right to take water to their lands bearing S. No. 118/1 and 118/2 from the well situated in R. S. No. 119/1 the land of defendants 1 and 2. R. S. No. 119/2a and 119/2b are the lands of defendants 3 and 4. Plaintiffs contended that they and defendants are raising crops of coconut, paddy, sugarcane and vegetables in their respective lands for the last 100 years and are taking water from the Well situated in the R. S. No. 119/1. This the plaintiffs are doing as it is conveniently situated between the lands of plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs contended that the owners of S. No. 119 take water to the extent of 2/3rd share and owners and cultivators of S. No. 118 take water to the extent of l/3rd share and they are taking water according to their turn. During 1870-71 at the time of the Revision Survey there was a measurement and pot hissa nos. were given and the right to take water from the said well is mentioned in the records to the extent of their respective shares. Even during 1964 the right is mentioned in a book prepared and it is alleged that both the plaintiffs and defendants have got repaired the well and borne the respective charges. In R. S. No. 118/1 there is a sugarcane crop and R. S. No. 118/2 is kept ready for sowing sugarcane, but since about 4 to 6 days before the suit, the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs from taking water from the said well. They further contended that all the above lands are also fed from the Government Tank in Revision Survey No. 271, but the water from the said tank cannot be taken for more then 2-3 months and that Tank gets water from the rains only and it will last for 2-3 months. They further contended that all the above lands are also fed from the Government Tank in Revision Survey No. 271, but the water from the said tank cannot be taken for more then 2-3 months and that Tank gets water from the rains only and it will last for 2-3 months. Hence, both plaintiffs and defendants depend upon the well water for their sugarcane crop from the well situated in S. No. 119/1 and also the water avilable in the tank. Further the plaintiffs submit that to take sugarcane crop, at least 11 months are required and throughout the period water is necessary. They cannot take the crop without the water from the said well and the tank. Defendants 1 to 4 have resisted the suit and filed their written statement inter alia contending that all the allegations made are false. They denied that the plaintiffs have easementary rights; they denied plaintiffs ever took water from the well; they also submitted that in no circumstances, the plaintiffs could file the suit of this nature against them as no right of easement to take water accrued to them at any time. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, learned Munsiff raised the following issues:- 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they were entitled to get l/3rd water to the suit land from the well situated in r. S. No. 119/1? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have got this right by way of ease ment? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration and perpetual injunction? 4) What order or Decree? ( 4 ) AFTER appreciating the oral evidence placed by both the parties and examining the documents, the learned Munsiff, dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed R. A. No. 181 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, haveri. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 filed the above appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed R. A. No. 181 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, haveri. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 filed the above appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. ( 5 ) THIS appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:-"whether the view of the appellate Court that plaintiffs had established a prescriptive right of easement is vitiated by absence of pleadings necessary to sustain the case for a prescriptive right?" ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Civil judge has not considered the case properly and correctly. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ramamurthy submitted that the first appellate Judge, did not give a clear finding that the plaintiffs have got right of easement to take water from the well situated in the lands of defendants. He also submitted that it cannot be recognized that a right of easement to take water from the well of others does not really come within the easements right, for which he relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Chheddu Singh v Kewal - AIR 1963 ALLAHABAD, 122. ( 7 ) AS against this the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no dispute of the fact that the well existed in s. No. 119/1. The said survey number belonged to them. At no time the plaintiffs took water to cultivate their lands. Therefore, the question of easementary right does not arise at all. However, they adds that they have not acquired the right as per law. To acquire such right, 20 years continuous enjoyment of the easementary right uninterruptedly by the other side is essential. There is nothing to show that such right was enjoyed by the plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs say that the right has accrued to them and therefore, a decree ought to have been passed by the trial Court also. After appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 6, the learned Civil Judge, who is the final fact finding authority, has stated in his judgment that P. Ws. 3 to 6 are independent witnesses whose evidence is trustworthy and who have no axe to grind against the defendants. After appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 6, the learned Civil Judge, who is the final fact finding authority, has stated in his judgment that P. Ws. 3 to 6 are independent witnesses whose evidence is trustworthy and who have no axe to grind against the defendants. Of course there are minor discrepancies, which are not of serious nature and they did no damage to the evidence. , The documents i Exs. P. 1 and P. 11 are the two documents relied on by the Civil Judge for his conclusions. Ex. P. l is a true copy of the bhagayat book. Mr. Ramamurthy very seriously contended that it is not a document which could be relied upon as it is a copy said to have been issued by the ASLR, but it does not bear the seal and therefore, he contends that the certified copy, if issued by an authority, it should bear the signature of the Authority and bear the seal of the Office also. Therefore, he invited my attention to section 76 of the Evidence Act. Section 76 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:-"76. Every public Officer having the custody of a Public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such Officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. "it is made very clear that there should be date and the seal. Officer should subscribe his signature to it. It is also made clear that it shall bear the seal. Therefore, it is mandatory that the document shall bear the seal. Therefore, it is of doubtful nature and he submits that he cannot be read as evidence and no reliance can be placed on it. As against this mr. Ramakant Desai, submitted and invited my attention to the discussion of the First appellate Judge. Therefore, it is mandatory that the document shall bear the seal. Therefore, it is of doubtful nature and he submits that he cannot be read as evidence and no reliance can be placed on it. As against this mr. Ramakant Desai, submitted and invited my attention to the discussion of the First appellate Judge. Though it does not bear the signature, the author has been examined in the trial Court, as he appeared before the court and produced the original register, which was put to him and he has given evidence. Therefore, it was treated by the trial Court not as a certified copy of the document, but as a document duly proved by the Authority issuing it. Therefore, this document will have to be relied upon for the appreciation of the evidence. In the said document, it is written at serial No. 6, thus:- That it was clearly written that water is taken from the well in S. No. 119 for 118. So also another document which it at Ex. P. ll, which is a certified copy and no dispute is there about it, bears the same endorsement. Therefore, these two documents when read with the oral evidence confirm that water was taken from the well situated in S. No. 119 to the land bearing S. No. 118. It is also made clear by the first appellate Judge that Exs. P. l and P. 11 give further strength to the plaintiffs' case that they got right to an extent of l/3rd share of water in the suit well. This easementary right is established by the plaintiffs by producing documents and also examining witnesses. Merely because the mutation was rejected in the year 1970, it cannot be held that the prescriptive right was not enjoyed by the plaintiffs. Further in unequivocal terms, the first appellate Judge, has stated that the plaintiffs have established their right. I am inclined to agree with the finding given by the learned Civil Judge. Therefore, the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge are liable to be sustained. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the learned civil Judge, Haveri, is confirmed. No Costs. This Court has on 1-9-1986 ordered that the appeal in so far it relates to appellant 2 (D) has abated. --- *** --- .