STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DHULAPPA RACHAPPA MUCHANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in o. S. No. 17 of 192 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bailhongal. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 5 in the suit. The respondent is the plaintiff filed the suit for damages claiming Rs. 8,55,000/ -. A presentable grievance is made out by the plaintiff in this suit. Plaintiff states that he owns 11. 13 guntas of agricultural land in Munoli village of Saundatti Taluk. On account of Malaprabha Irrigation Project, canals and field channals have been dug in the agricultural lands. On account of constant flow of water in the field canals and channels, there is a threat of constant seepage of water rendering the lands in the adjoining non aycut area affected by salinity. The plaintiff claims to be the victim of the aforesaid consequence and that his land is totally affected by salinity and has rendered his lands unfit for cultivation. Under the normal conditions, plaintiff claims that by growing groundnut, cotton, jower, wheat etc. , he used to have an annual net income of Rs. 5,000/- per annum. In view of the salinity, the land has become unfit for cultivation since ten years and in all claims damaged of Rs. 8,55,000/ -. The plaintiff prosecuted the suit as an indigent person.

(2.) THE defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement denying the liability to answer the suit claim, denies the contention of the plaintiff that the suit land is affected by salinity on account of the irrigation project and pray for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff prosecuted the suit as an indigent person. The trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,11,391/- with interest at 10 percent per annum from the date of suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) THE Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 69 and 33 of the Karnataka Irrigation act the suit of the plaintiff is barred and in the evidence a sketch produced by the plaintiff to show that there is a natural stream flowing near by the lands of the plaintiff. Therefore it was contended that it is not clinching from the material that the alleged salinity is on account of the peculation of the water from the canals or from the natural stream. The Counsel also submitted that the method adopted by the plaintiff in seeking damages is untenable and for every year's of loss, the plaintiff cannot make a claim in the manner claimed and if it so permitted literally the plaintiff can successfully get a compensation eternally for every year on the ground of failure of crop on account of salinity. It is also contended that the claim is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Act.