the servient owner may narrow the channel so long as he does not prevent the dominant owner from exercising his right as he has always been accustomed to: such a right must be claimed in a particular direction to be valid.†

Custom.-Where the plaintiffs sued to restrain defendants from fishing in certain bhíls, and the defendants claimed the right by custom for the inhabitants of certain villages to fish therein, it was held that such a custom would be unreasonable ‡ Limitation.—In suits for obstructing a way, three years from the date of the

obstruction.§

Form No. 292.

FOR DIVERTing Water from a Mill.

Plaintiff states:

1. That the plaintiff is, and at the time hereinafter mentioned was, possessed of a mill situated on a stream known as the

2. That by reason of such possession the plaintiff was entitled to the flow of the said stream for working the said mill.

3. That on the

day of

18, the defendant, by cutting

the bank of the said stream, wrongfully diverted the water thereof, so that less water ran into the plaintiff's mill.

4. That by reason thereof, the plaiutiff has been unable to grind more than sacks per day, whereas, before the said diverson of water, he was able to grind sacks per day.

Watercourse.-Where water flows in its natural course from somewhere outside A's land, through it, and onwards to other peoples' land, A is not entitled to stop the flow by an embankment across it, unless he can make out some special right to do so. Such course is a part of the natural condition of the land, and the flow of the water over it, when it occurs, is a natural incident.||

When plaintiffs, the inhabitants of a village holding immediately from Government, had enjoyed the use of the water of a certain river for upwards of 280 years, and Government interfered with their use of the same, it was held that Government had no right of interference, neither as riparian proprietors (supposing them to be such), since the right to the enjoyment of the water of a river belongs to the

* Doorga Churu Dhur v. Kally Churn Sen, I. L. R., 7 Cal. 145.

+ Doorga Churn Dhar v. Kally Churn, supra.

Lutchmeeput Singh v. Sadaulla Nushyo, I. L. R., 9 Cal. 698.

§ Art. 37, Limitation Act, 1877.

Baboo Chumroo v. Mullick Khyrut, 18 W. R. 525.

occupant of the river-bank, whatever the nature of his tenancy, nor by any other imaginary rights existing in the Government as such, since if any such rights ever existed, the long user for upwards of 280 years of the water of the river would be amply sufficient to justify a presumption of an original animus dedicandi in the Government."

Right to Passage of Water in Defined Channel.-Where plaintiff established that, for a long series of years, the water from his lands had been accustomed to escape in a particular direction, and by certain separate passages across the defendant's land, the defendant could not do any thing which would interfere with the plaintiff's rights in this respect.†

The right to an easement in the flow of water through an artificial watercourse is as valid against the Government as it is against a private owner of land.‡

Limitation.-In suits for compensation for diverting a watercourse, three years from the date of the diversion.§

Form No. 293.

FOR OBSTRUCTING A RIGHT TO USE WATER FOR IRRIGATION.

Plaintiff states :

1. That he is, and at the time hereinafter mentioned was, possessed of certain lands (describe them), and entitled to take and use a portion of the water of a certain stream for irrigating the said lands.

2. That on the day of 18 the defendant prevented the plaintiff from taking and using the said portion of the said water as aforesaid, by wrongfully obstructing and diverting the said stream.

Right to use of Water for Irrigation: How Acquired.-The right to have water for irrigation-purposes flowing from a reservoir on a neighbour's land through artificial watercourses must rest on some grant or arrangement, proved or presumed, from or with the owner of the land from which the water is artificially brought, or on some other legal origin; such a right may be presumed from the time, manner, and circumstances under which the easement has been enjoyed.[]

The First Assistant Collector of Nasick v. Slamji Dasrath, I. L. R., 7 Bom. 209. + Imam Ali v. Poresh Mundul, I. L. R., 8 Cal. 468.

Ponnusawmi Tevar v. The Collector of Madura, 5 Mad. H. C. R. 6.

§ Art. 38, Limitation Act, 1877.

Ramessur Persad Narain Singh v. Koonj Behari Pattuck, I. L. R., 4 Cal. 633; L. R., 6 I. A, 33; L. R., 4 App. Cas. 121.

So, where plaintiff, who in 1860 entered into an agreement for the lease from Government of a piece of land, having received possession, opened an artificial channel for conveyance of water, for the use of his estate, upon an adjoining piece of Government waste-land, and in 1865 received a formal lease, and subsequently, in 1874, a lease of this waste-land was granted to defendant, it was held that the flow of water in the channel having existed as an apparent and continuous easement in fact at the time of the execution of the lease in 1865, a right to it passed by implication under that lease, and the plaintiff was accordingly entitled to it; and that defendant, whose lease was subject to that right, was not entitled to interrupt the flow, but that he might use the water in a reasonable manner as it flowed through his land."

Limitation.-In suits for compensation for obstructing a watercourse, three years from the date of the obstruction.†

Form No. 294.

FOR ERECTING a Dam ABOVE PLAINTIFF'S DAM.

Plaintiff states:

day of

18, and ever since that day,

1. That on the the plaintiff has been in the actual possession of a grist-mill, situated on (state what stream), in the district of together with a dam, to raise a head of water as high as should be necessary for said mill, and of the right to have the whole water of said stream, without obstruction or impediment, flow into and upon the pond for the benefit of said mill, as ancient rights and privileges, appurtenant to said mill.

day of

18, erect

2. That the defendant did, on the a new dam across the said stream, above the plaintiff's dam aforesaid, within the limits of the plaintiff's pond and ground, and thereby cut off part of his said pond, backed the water above, and stopped its natural course as it anciently used to run; and that he still continues his new dam and obstruction, thereby frequently stopping the water from reaching the plaintiff's mill, and obliging the same to stand idle for want of water; and at other times letting out the water through said new dam so suddenly, and in such large quantities, as to tear away part of the plaintiff's said dam; whereby the plaintiff's mill aforesaid has become useless and of no value.

Morgan v. Kirby, I. L. R., 2 Mad. 47.

Art. 37, Limitation Act, 1877.

Form No. 295.

FOR POLLUTING WATER UNDER PLAINTIFF'S LAND.

Plaintiff states:

1. That he is, and all times hereinafter mentioned was, possessed of certain land (describe it) and of a certain well therein, and of water in the said well, and was entitled to the use and benefit of the said well and of the said water therein, and to have certain springs and streams of water which flowed and ran into the said well to supply the same to flow or run without being fouled or polluted.

2. That on the

day of

18 defendant wrongfully fouled and polluted the said well and the said water therein, and the said springs and streams of water which flowed into the said well.

3. That by reason of the premises the said water in the said well became impure and unfit for domestic and other necessary purposes, and the plaintiff and his family are deprived of the use and benefit of the said well and water.

Pollution of Watercourse.-Suit lies for compensation for polluting a stream to the injury of persons having a right to the use of the water.*

without cause, spoke in the presence of A B and others (name them), the following words concerning the plaintiff and his property (insert the exact language with innuendoes).

3. That the said words were false.

* Murgatroyed v. Robinson, 7 E. and B, 391; 26 L. J., Q. B., 233.

F. P.-29

4. That said A B (or others, naming them) was then and there negociating for the purchase of said premises, and that by reason thereof said A B (or others) were dissuaded from making such purchase.

5. That by reason of said words, the said A B refused, and still refuses, to purchase the said property from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been, by reason thereof, unable to sell the same, and has been otherwise greatly injured thereby.

Necessary Averments.-Plaintiff must allege and prove that the slander is false, that it was spoken or published maliciously, and that he has suffered damage.

1. That at the time hereinafter mentioned he was, and now is, the owner, and lawfully in the possession, of a piece of land (describe it). 18 the defendant was

2. That on the

day of

the owner in possession of, aud chargeable with the care of, certain animals, to wit, sheep.

3. That on that day said animals ran and trespassed upon said lands, ate up, injured, and destroyed the grain and verdure growing thereon, of the value of Rs.

Trespass on Land Defined.-Trespass to land is a wrongful and unwarrantable entry upon the land of another person.† Every entry upon land in the occupation of another is a trespass, unless it can be justified in the execution of some legal or personal authority, or some incorporeal right. The act need not be intentional, and it is not essential in order to maintain & suit that damage should have really been done.

Parties. The person in actual occupation should sue, but if the reversionary interest of a landlord is injured by the trespass, as when the damage done is permanent, and lessens the value of the property, then he may sue either with the tenant or separately.

Abetment of Wrong.-In suits for compensation for wronge, those who abet the tortuous acts are equally liable with those who commit the wrong.