appellants that courts below have not given serious thought to the above contention of appellants. Learned Senior Advocate would contend that the courts below, it would appear had a misimpression about the plea raised by appellants when they stated that they have right over the disputed bund as per the local custom. Learned Senior Advocate would explain that 'thadayavaramba' as per local usage meant, a bund which is required for the protection of the upper paddy field which included discharge of excess water from that field which fact was lost sight of by the courts below. Learned Senior Advocate would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopalankutty Nair & Ors. Vs. Kunhirama Tharakan & Ors. ( 2000 SAR (Civil) 346). My attention is drawn to the observations in paragraph 10 of the judgment. It is also argued by the learned Senior Advocate that if at all this court finds that plea raised by the appellants as to customary easement is not sufficient appellants may be given an opportunity to incorporate appropriate plea in that regard and adduce evidence. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would contend that even after amendment of plaint as aforesaid, main contention advanced by the appellants related to ownership and possession of the disputed bund though, a faint plea is made in paragraph 2A that there was a sluice on the disputed bund through which appellants were discharging water from their field but, no plea regarding customary easement was made, not to say about lack of evidence in support of
