C VENKATESAN Vs. MUNUSAMI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.564 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur, has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree of Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.9 of 1996 dated 3.3.1997, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22.11.1995.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction that the water from the well in A Schedule property should not be taken B Schedule property by the defendants and their men. S.No.145 measuring 1.01 acre, S.No.117/1 measuring 20 cents. S.No.117/3 measuring 84 cents and other properties in Kalasamudiram village are ancestral properties of the plaintiff. THEse properties were divided by the plaintiff and his brother under a registered document dated 24.12.1988. THEre is a well in S.No.145 and 3 HP Motor Pumpset and 5/16 share in the well. Subsequently, the share allotted to the plaintiff's brother was, also purchased by the plaintiff's brother was, also purchased by the plaintiff under a registered document dated 1.3.1990 and as such the plaintiff had acquired 1/16 share in the suit well. One Duraisami Gounder also has got right in 1 acre 15 cents in S.No.117 and 11 cents in S.No.145 and also 1/4 right in the well. THE said Duraisami Gounder conveyed his right to the Ist defendant under a registered document dated 31.12.1951. According to the plaintiff, the well after in S.No.145 can be irrigated only to the aforesaid survey numbers and they are the ayakattu lands. None of the parties have got right to take water to other survey numbers. D-2 son of D-1 had purchased the B schedule Property from a 3rd party under a registered document dated 14.5.1991 in S.No.118, which is outside the ayakattu. THE defendant attempted to take water from the suit well to the B Schedule property also. THE water in the well is available for irrigating only the ayakattu lands and not for other lands. Hence, the suit.

(3.) POINTS: The plaint A Schedule property is a dry land measuring 2.74 acres in S.No.145 in Kalasamudiram village and there is a well situated in an extent of 4 cents. B Schedule Property is also situated in the same village and the dry land in S.No.118/4 is measuring 1.52 acres and S.No.118/9 is measuring 28 cents. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff and his brother were having right in S.Nos.145, 117/1 and 117/3 and they have divided the properties in the family partition under a registered document dated 24.12.1988. The plaintiff got 5/16 share in the well in S.No.145 and also half share in the 3 HP Motor Pumpset installed in the well. Similar right was also given to the brother of the plaintiff and ultimately P.W.1 had purchased the share of his brother also under a registered document dated 1.3.1990. By this, it is evidently clear that P.W.1 had acquired 10/16 share in the suit well and full right over the 3 HP Motor Pumpset. Similarly one Duraisami Gounder had also got 1/4 right in the well and the right in the well as well other areas in S.Nos.117 and 145 were also purchased by D-1 under a registered document dated 31.12.1951. Subsequently, D-2 had purchased the B Schedule property which is in S.No.118 from a 3rd party under a registered document dated 24.5.1991 and attempted to take water from the well in the A Schedule property to the lands in B Schedule property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the water from the well in the A Schedule property can be used for irrigating only the ayakattu lands namely S.No.118 and as it is not a ayakattu area neither the defendants nor their men are entitled to take water.