SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY S/O SHIVALINGAPPANA MADAPPA Vs. SMT BASAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA, MALLANNA S/O MAHADEVAPPA, KARIBASAPPA S/O MALLANNA AND MAHADEVAPPA S/O MADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant heroin is the plaintiff in 0.5. No. 59/1997. The suit in question was filed seeking for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to use the water through the suit 'A' schedule water course for agricultural purposes to cultivate their lands. The Trial Court has dismissed the said suit by its judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003. The plaintiff was therefore before the Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 66/2003. The Lower Appellate Court after re -appreciating the matter, has dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 03.04.2006. The plaintiff therefore claiming to he aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts below is before this Court.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the 'A' schedule property is a kharab land measuring 15 guntas in Sy. No. 215/2 of Eshwaragowdanahalli and there is a water course in the said land running from North to South. According to the plaintiff, on the western side of the water course, the 'B' schedule property belonging to the plaintiff is situate in the said Sy. No. 215/2 which measures 1 acre and on the eastern side, the 'C' schedule property belonging to the defendants is situate. The grievance therefore is that despite the plaintiff and the defendants can only make use of the water course situate in the kharab land, the defendants are in fact cultivating in the said land itself which has effected the plaintiff's right to use the water and therefore, the injunction has been sought for by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from such act so that the plaintiff can use the water course for his cultivation.

(3.) THE Trial Court based on the rival contentions initially framed three issues for its consideration and thereafter, framed three additional issues.