the location of the particular drain. Apart from that, it would appear that there had been a dispute between the parties that went upto the police where a compromise was recorded about the existing state of affairs and admitting to the existence of the drain and the discharge of water of the house of the plaintiff through the defendant's proeprty. The only point which was stated was that the plaintiff did not act as per the compromise in that he had to construct a pucca channel and he had allowed the water to discharge the same way as it was previously being done. The Court reasoned that this breach ought not to be taken as resulting in giving up the right to drain the water through the defendant's property. DW3 was again another witness Ashwani Kumar who admitted the correctness of the statement that waste water from the house of the plaintiff would fall into the drain through the channel claimed by the plaintiff. He had also referred the compromise that took place between the parties and how the water was required to be drained. DW4 was another witness who corroborated the correctness of the site plan in Ex.P1. In a situation where the person was making a reference to the right of easement of drain over yet another person's property and in this case, there was a contention that he had moved from the place now in Pakistan to India at the time of partition, he had been living in the present house and he was draining the water through the particular channel which was not being shown in the plan, the Court will look for an express grant or an acquisition by prescription. The Court was looking therefore any appropriate evidence as regards the existence of such channel. Every one of the witnesses brought by the defendant literally supported the plaintiff's case and before the Appellate Court found that
