NAGESHA AND ORS. Vs. P. RAMACHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants appellants and the respondent plaintiff are the neighbouring land holders. The defendants' properties are situated towards eastern side of the plaintiff's suit schedule property, which is on the upper side and the defendants' properties are on the lower side. A water channel exists towards northern side of the suit schedule property and passes through the suit schedule property and continues to run into the properties of the defendants. In the matter of mode and manner of drawing water from the said channel, a dispute having arisen, the respondent filed O.S.No.21/2010 in the Court of Civil Judge at Sullia. The appellants, as the defendants, filed written statement and contested the suit on multiple grounds. Based on the pleadings, issues were raised. The plaintiff, in order to prove the case got examined himself as PW-1 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, 2nd defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and marked seven documents as Exs.D1 to D7. A Court Commissioner appointed, after conducting local inspection submitted the report and was examined as CW-1. The Commission report and sketch have been marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

(2.) As against the said decree, the defendants filed R.A.No.8/2013, in the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Puttur, itinerating at Sullia, D.K. Considering the rival contentions and the record of the suit, four points were raised for consideration. On independent assessment of the evidence, the lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants made attempt to forcibly install pipes in the existing water channel passing through the suit schedule property. It has further held that the defendants did not cause any interference with the right of enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. By a Judgment dated 25.06.2015, the appeal was allowed, the impugned decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(3.) However, the defendants having been directed not to enter into the suit schedule property of the plaintiff for installation or repair of the pipeline, without approaching the Tahsildar, under S.90A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short 'KLR Act'), this second appeal was filed, limiting the challenge in so far as the said direction is concerned.