DUNDAPPA Vs. AADAPPA RAYAPPAN BUDIGOPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above review petition is filed to review the order dated 14.08.2014 made in RSA No. 5035/2011. The present review petitioner was the appellant before this Court in regular second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2000 passed in Regular Appeal No. 66/2007 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26.03.2007 made in OS No. 50/2000 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), while allowing the appeal and granted perpetual prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant, restraining him from obstructing the flow of water and discharging the water from the lands and wells of the appellants to the suit Naala and also granted injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents, servants, restraining them from encroaching upon the lands of the appellants by crossing the suit Naala and prohibitory injunction against the respondent his men, agents and servants from cutting trees standing in the lands of the appellants on the northern side of the Naala. This Court, considering the regular second appeal on merits by its order dated 14.08.2014, while answering the substantial questions of law, has permitted the plaintiffs to discharge water from their lands and wells to the suit Naala with a direction to the defendant not to cut the trees abutting the Naala, but he was permitted to prune the branches of trees for the purpose of better cultivation. Accordingly, this Court, by the said judgment and decree, modified the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.

(2.) THE present review petition is filed by the review petitioner/defendant mainly on the ground that in view of the observation made by this Court, the respondents with mala fide intention to harass the petitioner, is playing a foul play by discharging the water into the petitioner's farm/land, classifying the same as excess water with the help of technology viz., pump -sets, with an ill -motive to destroy the crops grown on the petitioner's land. Hence, the present review petition.

(3.) SRI . Naveen R. Melinamani, learned counsel for the review petitioner, has re -iterated the grounds urged in the review petition and contended that in view of the observations made by this Court, declaring the right of the plaintiffs to discharge water into Naala, the plaintiffs are misusing the same, by discharging the excess water into the petitioner's farm/land, by mechanical force. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order passed by this Court dated 14.08.2014.