CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. ALEXANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The defendants are admittedly tenants of a building owned by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants had tried to alter the building and the plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S. 129/1981 for injunction restraining them from doing so. Thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had approached the Municipality for giving water connection to the house. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants cannot get water connection without his permission. If the defendants are allowed to get water connection the building of the plaintiff will be damaged. Therefore the suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from drawing water connection to the plaint schedule premises.

(2.) The defendants filed written statement contending that water being an essential requirement they have got every right to get water from the municipal pipe line. Though there was a well near the plaint schedule building the plaintiff has put waste in the well and water is not pure for drinking. During the summer season there will be no water in the well. Therefore drawing of pipe connection for drinking water is absolutely essential.

(3.) The Trial Court after taking the evidence disposed of the suit in the following manner: