https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289410 The High Court could not recast the pleaded case as one concerning a natural flow of water and then invoke Section 17(c) of the Easements Act to reject the claim, because the suit had been tried throughout on the footing of an alleged artificial channel used openly and continuously. On those pleadings and issues, Section 17(c) had no application, so that basis for defeat of the claim was erroneous. The High Court also exceeded its second appellate jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and disturbing findings already recorded by the first appellate court on the existence of the channel and the obstruction. The appeal succeeded, the High Court decree was set aside, and the lower appellate court decree was restored. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:06:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289410 The High Court could not recast the pleaded case as one concerning a natural flow of water and then invoke Section 17(c) of the Easements Act to reject the claim, because the suit had been tried throughout on the footing of an alleged artificial channel used openly and continuously. On those pleadings and issues, Section 17(c) had no application, so that basis for defeat of the claim was erroneous. The High Court also exceeded its second appellate jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and disturbing findings already recorded by the first appellate court on the existence of the channel and the obstruction. The appeal succeeded, the High Court decree was set aside, and the lower appellate court decree was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289410