MARRIANNAN Vs. PALANIAPPAN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal is filed by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the Courts below which had decreed the suit filed for declaration of his right to draw water from Survey No.62/1F2 to land in Survey No.62/1G by water pipeline and to the land in Survey No.62/1C by water channel to the land of the defendants in Survey No.62/1E and consequently injunction restraining the right of the plaintiff drawing water from the well.

(2.) The suit was contested by the appellants herein on the ground that the defendants have no right over the property to an extent of 1.010.74 ares situated in Survey No.62/1F , 62/1G and 62/1C. The claim of share over the well situated in Survey No.62/1F2 and the right of drawing water in the said well to the channel passing through Survey No.62/1F and 62/1E to reach the land to irrigate were all denied.

(3.) The trial Court, appointed an Advocate Commissioner and got his report, after framing relevant issues allowed the suit based on the evidence let in by the parties. The trial Court finding was based on the Commissioner's report which specifically mentioned that there is water tank situated in Survey No.62/1F2 and Survey No.62/1G and there is a hole in the water tank for carrying the water to irrigate the land situated in other Survey Numbers. There are two water tanks. They are not newly constructed water tanks. This obviously indicates that the land in Survey No.62/1G, which has no independent water source to irrigate and it is irrigated only through the common well, which is the source of water and carried, though the channel and water tanks in Survey No.62/1F and 62/1G. Further the entire extent of Survey No.62/1 is originally enjoyed by one family, subsequently it was divided among the brothers. The well is the common source of irrigation for the entire land falling in the Survey No.62/1. Therefore the right of drawing water from the common well through the channel to irrigate the land cannot be prevented.