JUDGMENT : The plaintiff/respondent herein (For short “plaintiff”) instituted a suit bearing No. 69/10 of 2000, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (1) Shimla, H.P. In the afore suit, he claimed the making of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the instance of the defendant/petitioner herein (for short “defendant”), and, vis-a-vis, Khasra Nos. 1152/500, 1154/500, 1159/532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 539, 540, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547 and 537 kitas 14 total measuring 537.45 sq. meters for short (“the suit khasra numbers”). 2. The plaintiff’s suit became decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried thereagainst by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court made a verdict of dismissal, upon, the afore Civil Appeal No. 93-S/13 of 2004, and, obviously affirmed the judgment and decree as became accorded, vis-à-vis, the plaintiff hence by the learned trial Court, however, with a modification as becomes extracted hereinafter:- “However, it is slightly modified, instead of granting injunction in respect to entire land of the defendant, it is hereby ordered that the defendant will not cause any obstruction to the flow of rain water arising in and falling on the plaintiff’s property, and, he would remove the obstruction caused by him at Karukans 6-6 on the boundaries of khasra No. 540 (of defendant) and khasra Nos. 526 and 527 (of the plaintiff) situated in Mouza Phagli. The shajras Ext. PW-2/A and Ex. D-13 shall form part of the decree as already ordered by the Court below. 3. When the appeal came up for admission before this Court, it become admitted on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. When the plaintiff-respondent claimed right to drain, rain and sullage water and also right of passage by prescription easement and easement of necessity, was the suit not liable to be dismissed for the reason that the pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent were self contradictory and mutually destructive? 2. Whether both the Courts below have misapplied the provisions of Section 7 of the Easement Act when the right which was claimed by the plaintiff was to be established by proving the ingredients of Section 15 or at best Section 13 of Easement Act? 4. The suit land was acquired by the plaintiff from the previous owner one Krishna Devi through a registered deed of conveyance executed on 10.6.1982. 4. The suit land was acquired by the plaintiff from the previous owner one Krishna Devi through a registered deed of conveyance executed on 10.6.1982. The plaintiff averred that the plaintiff’s property is located above the defendant’s property. The plaintiff claimed decree (supra), on the ground, that owing to topographic condition, the natural rain water does not pass through defined channel rather passes through undefined channels on to the land of the defendant, hence from times immemorial. Consequently, the afore made pleadings are prima-facie in consonance with clause (i) of illustrations to Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act, (for short “the Act”) provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter:- “(i) The right of every owner of upper land that water naturally rising, or falling on such land, and not passing in defined channels, shall be allowed by the owner of adjacent lower land to run naturally thereto.” 5. Moreover, it is also pleaded in the plaint, that the afore exercise of easementary right by the plaintiff, and, appertaining to the rain water arising and falling over the dominant heritage, being passable, on to the land of the defendant, is exerisable, as, an easement of necessity. Consequently, the plaintiff pleaded that the afore easementary right accrues to him both on anvil of prescription, as well, on anchor of necessity. 6. The baulking of exercise of the afore right of easement by the defendant, upon, the servient heritage owned by defendant, was prayed to be undone, through the learned trial Court making a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, and, vis-à-vis the suit khasra numbers. 7. The defendant filed written-statement to the plaint, and, had denied the exercising of the afore right by the plaintiff. He denied that any such drain passed through his property. He contended, that the previous owner of the suit property, did not exercise, the afore easementary right, hence it was not exercise-able by the plaintiff. 8. The learned trial Court upon the evidence adduced before it, had decreed the plaintiff’s suit. The judgment and decree as made by the learned trial Court became affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court, except with a modification, as, extracted (supra). Moreover, the learned trial Court in paragraph 12 of its verdict referred, to admission(s), as, made by DW-1 (Rajmal) in his cross-examination, admission(s) whereof as narrated therein, and, become extracted hereinafter:- a). The judgment and decree as made by the learned trial Court became affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court, except with a modification, as, extracted (supra). Moreover, the learned trial Court in paragraph 12 of its verdict referred, to admission(s), as, made by DW-1 (Rajmal) in his cross-examination, admission(s) whereof as narrated therein, and, become extracted hereinafter:- a). That the outhouses of defendant are located over khasra No. 538 and his latrine exists over khasra No. 539. b) A pucca drain shown in photograph Ex. DC is in existence over khasra No. 539. c). Immediately above and abutted with this latrine in Khasra No. 539 are khasra No. 526 and 527, which are in the shape of courtyard and these stand recorded in the ownership and possession of plaintiff during settlement. d). That these khasra no. 526 and 527 which are recorded as “sehan”- courtyard lie in front of plaintiff’s building. e). That a down pipe installed for the discharge of roof water of plaintiff’s house opens up in front part of the building over khasra No. 526 and 527. f). The defendant’s witness DW-2 Virender Sharma in his examination in chief has supported the plaintiff’s case. He has stated that rain water of plaintiff’s land falls in front portion of his house and from there it rolls down through a danga situated below. This makes it clear that water first falls on khasra No. 526 and 527 through a down pipe and then spreads and come down to khasra No. 538, 539, 540 of the defendant. 9. Consequently, the learned trial Court made a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as claimed by the plaintiff, and, against the defendant, and, vis-à-vis the suit khasra Numbers. 10. Since the plaintiff has anchored his case, upon, clause (i) (supra) of Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, since he has pleaded his right of exercising the claimed easementary right upon the servient heritage, both on the basis of prescription, as well as, of necessity. Therefore, the mandate of clause (i) occurring in Section 7 of the Act is to be read alongwith the mandate of Clause (a) to (d) hence occurring in Section 13 of the Act, clauses whereof are extracted hereinafter:- 13. Therefore, the mandate of clause (i) occurring in Section 7 of the Act is to be read alongwith the mandate of Clause (a) to (d) hence occurring in Section 13 of the Act, clauses whereof are extracted hereinafter:- 13. Easements of necessity and quasi easements-Where one person transfers or bequeaths immovable property to another- (a) if an easement in other immovable property of the transferor or testator is necessary for enjoying the subject of the transfer or bequest, the transferee or legatee shall be entitled to such easement; or (b) If such an easement is apparent and continues and necessary for enjoying the said subject as it was enjoyed when the transfer or bequest took effect, the transferee or legatee shall, unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, be entitled to such easement; or (c) If an easement in the subject of the transfer or bequest is necessary for enjoying other immovable property of the transferor or testator, the transferor or the legal representative of the testator shall be entitled to such easement; or- (d) If such an easement is apparent and continues and necessary for enjoying the said property as it was enjoyed when the transfer or bequest too effect, the transferor, or the legal representative of the testator, shall, unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, be entitled to such easement.” 11. A deepest and circumspect reading of clause (a) to (d) of Section 13 of the Act, reveals that upon alienation or transfer of immoveable property, the transferee becoming entitled to the valid exercising by him, of an apparent easement, which prior thereto became exercised by the transferor concerned. However, the afore exercising, by the transferee, of an apparent and continuous easement, and, also when the exercisings thereof is necessary, for the completest enjoyment, of the immoveable property concerned, is rather with an exception, in as much as no intention to the contrary either express or implied being marshable from the relevant records. 12. However, the afore exercising, by the transferee, of an apparent and continuous easement, and, also when the exercisings thereof is necessary, for the completest enjoyment, of the immoveable property concerned, is rather with an exception, in as much as no intention to the contrary either express or implied being marshable from the relevant records. 12. Be that as it may, even the statutory right of easement vested in the owner of the dominant heritage, and, hence exercisable upon the servient heritage, and, as become echoed in clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, hence bestowed upon the servient owner, as the defendant, is, rather is a right that water naturally rising or falling from his land and not passing in defined channels being statutorily permitted for being hence allowed, by the owner of the servient heritage, to run naturally thereto. Moreover, the statutory words “not passing in defined channel”, carried therein do require assignment of connotation thereto. The connotation thereof, is that no concrete or pucca drains are ever required to be occurring, on the dominant heritage nor are required to be proven to be existing thereon, rather the running water, as, naturally rises in the servient heritage, is permitted to enter into the dominant heritage, only in undefined channels, as, the natural flow of water would become interrupted, through pucca drains existing on the dominant heritage, and, would also breach the afore signification as becomes ascribed to the statutory coinage “not passing in defined channels”. Conspicuously, the afore signification, as, is acquired by the statutory words (supra) are of grave importance, for hence the statutory right of easement created therethrough, in the dominant owner, being validly exercised. However, the import, of, the signification (supra) by both the learned Courts below is completely misunderstood. 13. The afore signification hence acquired by the statutory coinage (supra) becoming misunderstood by the learned Courts below, is palpably manifest, from the learned trial Court, making reference(s) (supra) in its verdict, importantly with respect to admissions (supra) made by DW-1, in his cross-examination, in as much, as, a pucca drain existing on a part of the servient heritage. The afore admission(s) of defendant No.1, are rather personificatory about the existence of a pucca drain, upon, a portion of servient heritage. The afore admission(s) of defendant No.1, are rather personificatory about the existence of a pucca drain, upon, a portion of servient heritage. Therefore, this amply demonstrates that water naturally rising or falling, on to the dominant heritage, was rather passing in defined channels, whereas it, was statutorily mandated to be passing in un-defined channels, on to the servient heritage. Therefore, the misunderstanding by the Courts below vis-à-vis the signification (supra), as, is made by the Court, to statutory coinage (supra) cannot be validated by the Court. 14. Moreover all the witnesses concerned, also made be speakings, vis-à-vis, defined pucca channels existing on a part of, the, servient heritage, whereon the water naturally rising or falling from the dominant heritage hence fall into. The afore echoing cannot strengthen the plaintiff’s case, as any approbation thereto, would breach the connotation (supra) as becomes assigned by this Court to the statutory coinage (supra) occurring in clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the afore oral evidence was also not amenable for it being validated nor also both the learned Courts below, could proceed to conclude that hence the statutory mandate carried in clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, rather becomes accomplished nor could they grant the espoused decree vis-a-vis the plaintiff. 15. Dehors the above, as aforestated, since the plaintiff has also pleaded in the plaint, that the exercising by him, of the pleaded right of easement, upon, the servient heritage was continuous as well as a dire necessity, for his hence enjoying the immoveable property concerned, and, obviously he pleaded the acquisition of the afore right, not only on the ground of prescription but also on the ground of necessity. Therefore, the exercising of the afore right by his predecessor-in-interest, was required to be also proven, from the previous owner, upon, the latter’s stepping into the witness box, and, besides from the registered deed of conveyance, as became executed inter-se the plaintiff, and, the previous owner, whereupon, upon, existences therein of express recitals, vis-à-vis, the transfer, to the transferee of the pleaded easementary right, an inference, was garnerable that right, if any, of easement, as exercised, by the previous owner, was also exercisable after the transfer of the servient heritage to the plaintiff/ the transferee. 16. 16. In the afore endeavour, a reading of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, does reveal, that it carried an admission in the relevant sale deed, there occurs no recital of any exercising by the alienor, of the afore right upon the dominant heritage nor also there exists any implied or express intention, hence to the contrary. Consequently, it is evident that the transferee/plaintiff hence cannot claim the pleaded easementary right from the dominant heritage on to the servient heritage. Moreover the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, did not step into the witness box, to testify, that he had been exercising the afore right. The effect of the afore omission is that the transferee, could not avail the right of easement, as, is claimed by him, to be continuing as well as it being a necessity, as, the exception carved in clause (b) of Section 13 of the Act, through existence therein of words “unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied” becomes enlivened, especially when they operate, as a proviso against the general principle embodied therein, that the transferee of the immoveable property concerned, would avail the easementary rights, as earlier availed by his transferor. Since reiteratedly the sale deed admittedly carries no recitals, vis-à-vis, the transfer of the pleaded easementary right vis-à-vis the transferee nor dehors the above nor any different “intention to the contrary express or implied” is carried therein, and as may have surfaced, upon the alienor concerned hence stepping into the witness box, whereas, the alienor of the plaintiff omitting to step into the witness box. therefore, the right of easement would not be exercisable by the plaintiff, upon, the dominant heritage. 17. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the Substantial questions of law are accordingly answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The impugned verdicts are quashed and set aside.