drawing water for irrigating his lands through the 'B' schedule channel and that the defendants destroyed the said channel on 06.08.1996 and 07.08.1996. His further contention is that on 15.08.1996, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants wherein the defendants agreed to allow the plaintiff to draw water from the suit channel by laying a pipeline from the channel to his land through the defendants' lands. Though the defendants denied of having entered into such an agreement, it was also contended by them that Ex.A1 was signed by them in the police station as the police threatened them to sign on that. However, since the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for a declaration that he is entitled to draw water from the 'B' schedule channel as he has right over the same by way of easement of necessity, the plaintiff has to establish his case by adducing acceptable evidence. It is to be pointed out that the plaintiff wants to lay a pipeline in the land of the defendants to draw water from the 'B' schedule channel. Both the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence to show the existence of the suit channel. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court, who filed his report and plan (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2). In the report, he has stated that there were traces of 40 feet long water channel in the land of the defendants. But the plaintiff has described the 'B' schedule property as 100' x 2' x 1'. Though the plaintiff had contended that the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants were originally owned by common ancestors, no evidence was adduced by him to establish the same. It is also pertinent to mention that both the courts below had rightly and concurrently held that Ex.A2 to Ex.A6 adduced on the side of the plaintiff is least useful to the plaintiff to prove the existence of the suit channel. It is also held that the approved plan dated 28.03.1992 for construction of a house by the defendants does not show the existence of a water channel in the land of the defendants. In fact, the trial court has observed that when a house is constructed over an agricultural land, there should be a mention about the existence of a water channel, if any, in the approved plan and that since there is no mention about the same in Ex.B1, it has to be held that the plaintiff did not prove that the suit channel existed as claimed by him.
