(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the concurrent set of judgments rendered by the two courts below holding that he was vainly contending against the decisions of the authorities under the Irrigation Act, upholding the defendant's right to take water from a smaller channel coursing through the plaintiff's land in survey No. 192 of Prabhuvanahally to his own land in survey No. 173/1 in the neighbourhood thereof.
(2.) It is common ground that the plaintiff and the defendant having fallen out on the issue regards the defendant's right to take water source supposedly located in the plaintiff's land in survey No. 192. There was an enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner as an Irrigation Officer purportedly under Section 12 of the Irrigation Act ('Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner held that the defendant had the right to take water through a small channel called 'Plla Kaluve' which is existed in survey No. 192 and that the same should cater to the needs of the defendant. From that order of the learned Assistant Commissioner, admittedly the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, by an order made on 28-6-1982. The plaintiff sought to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner as also that of the Assistant Commissioner by instituting the suit in O.S. No. 65 of 1967 challenging the R. 50 orders of the Irrigation Authority as illegal and asserting once again his denial of the defendant's right to take water through the channel laid on his land in survey No. 192.
(3.) The defendant on appearance filed a written statement repudiating the plaint allegations and inter alia raised a plea of limitation. He maintained that the suit was clearly barred by time not having been brought within one year from the date of the Deputy Commissioner's order.