PALANISAMY GOUNDER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who proved to be successful before the trial court, but became unsuccessful before the lower appellate court, has come forward with the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in A.S.No.29/2007 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.289/2004.

(2.) THE appellant is the owner of eastern most property shown in the plaint plan and the property comprised in Survey No.1086, which lies on the west of one Narayanasamy's property. In between the eastern most property belonging to the plaintiff and Narayanasamy's property, one Easwaran has got a field. THE sluice meant for getting Parambikulam-Azhiyar water for irrigation purpose is found near the eastern property of the plaintiff. From there a channel runs through the land of Easwaran on the southern and western sides, which then proceeds towards west across the land of Narayanasamy to reach survey No.1086 belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. Expressing some difficulty in drawing water through the above said plan marked channel and contending that, if the appellant/plaintiff was allowed to form a new channel north-south across his eastern property and take it along the east-west ittery to reach the western property, namely Survey No.1086, would prevent the seepage of water flowing into the neighbouring field, the appellant/plaintiff approached the respondents/defendants, who are the District Collector, Engineers of Azhiyar Irrigation Division, Tahsildar of Kangeyam Taluk and the President of Sivanmalai Panchayat, seeking permission to lay such a new channel for drawing water to the plaintiff's field in Survey No.1086. As the permission sought for was not granted and no order granting such permission was passed, the appellant/plaintiff approached the trial court by filing O.S.No.289/2004 for a declaration that he had got a right to form a channel as claimed by him and draw water to his western field comprised in Survey No.1086 through such channel and a mandatory injunction directing the respondents herein to accord such permission. THE trial court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought for and thus decreed the suit. On appeal preferred by the respondents herein before the lower appellate court, the trial court's judgment was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Hence the appellant has come forward with the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court.

(3.) IN addition to that, as pointed supra, it is not feasible to form a channel in the direction pointed out by the plaintiff in his plaint and the plaint plan without abridging the ittery or without drawing the channel through third person's land. On that score also, the plaintiff is bound to fail. Though the present second appeal is an appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court, this court is not satisfied that any substantial question of law is involved. Therefore, the appeal is bound to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.