1- Translate the following legal text into colloquial Farsi and make the Farsi translation regular and smooth. 2- Place the Farsi and English text with a line between each other, that is, the English text should be one line.  A space and then a Persian translation line and...
              4- Using legal language for Persian translation 5- Continue to the end of the text

                 .(b) Profits à prendre
A profit à prendre is the right to take something from the land of another, e.g. a right of fishing in another's river, grazing rights for cattle, a right to col- lect firewood or to cut turf. The right to draw water from another's river or stream is an exception since it is treated in law as an easement, not a profit. (This apparent anomaly is based on the proposition that running water cannot be privately owned.) The distinctions between a profit and an easement
are:
(i) An easement must, as it is put, be appurtenant to land (i.e. there must be a dominant and servient tenement), while a profit may exist in gross, which means that it may be enjoyed by its owner or owners independ- ently of any dominant tenement and unconnected with the enjoyment of land.
(ii) A profit may be a 'several profit', i.e. enjoyed by one person only to the exclusion of all others, or a 'profit in common', i.e. enjoyed by many people. Thus A may have a right to shoot game on B's land (a several profit), and all the inhabitants of a certain village may have a right to graze cattle on B's land (a profit in common).
Easements and profits may be created by (i) statute, (ii) grant (express, implied or presumed), and (iii) prescription.
(i) By statute
Where these exist, the statute is usually a local one. An exception to this rule is the Access to Neighbouring Land Act, 1992. This enables people who need access to their neighbour's land in order to ascertain types of repair and maintenance work on their own land to get a court order authorizing entry.
(ii) By grant
This is the most usual method of acquisition of a servitude. Express grants exist where the owner of the servient tenement creates the servitude by deed. An implied grant is one implied by law. Let us suppose that A owns a field and a bungalow in the middle of it. If A sells the field, without reserving a right of way from the bungalow to the road, they will have no means of access. A reservation of way is, therefore, implied in favour of the bungalow retained by A. This is called an easement or way of necessity'.(ii) By prescription At common law, proof of use of a servitude from 'time immemorial', i.e. since,1189, is regarded as giving a prescriptive right to the servitude. In prac- tice the courts regard any long usage as sufficient to raise the presumption that the right has existed since 1189, but the presumption may be rebutted by proof that the right did not exist, or by its nature could not have existed, at some time since 1189.
 Because of the obvious difficulty of proof of continuous use since 1189, the courts evolved the doctrine of the Lost Modern Grant. Under this doc- trine a court will sometimes presume, provided that long use (usually twenty years) can be proved, that a grant was made at some time since 1189 but that it has subsequently been lost (Bridle v. Ruby and Another, 1988). While a grantee (user) of a right of way is entitled to repair it, any improvements beyond this would amount to a trespass (Mills and Another v. Silver and Otbers (1991).
 Under the Prescription Act, 1832, which was passed to remedy some of the defects in the common law prescriptive rights, the grant of a servitude may be presumed from long usage of the right involved. In the case of an easement, the usage must be for twenty years; and in the case of a profit, thirty years. Where the servitude has been held or enjoyed by right of oral permission from the owner of the servient tenement, the periods of prescrip- tion are (under the Prescription Act, 1832) forty years for an easement, and sixty years for a profit. Written permission defeats prescription The Rights of Light Act, 1959, provides for a permanent change in the methods of preventing the acquisition of a right of light by enjoyment of the right for one period of twenty years. Under the Prescription Act, 1832, a servient owner could avoid the creation of a right of light by statutory pre- scription only if they (i) gave written permission, or (ii) interrupted the enjoyment of the right for a continuous period of one year. This interruption could be effected by, for example, putting up a screen to prevent access of light to the dominant premises. The latter method may not always be prac- tical because the permission of the planning authority is necessary for the erection of such a physical structure, and that permission is discretionary: Now, under the Rights of Light Act, 1959, a servient owner may substitute for the actual screen a 'notional screen. This may be done by registering in the register of local land charges a statutory notice indicating the exact site of the screen which they would have liked to erect. 'The effect of such registra- tion is the same as if the access to light of the dominant tenement had been obstructed for one year