A GOWRI BAI Vs. S ELIZABETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs, who were successful in the Trial Court and unsuccessful in the First Appellate Court, are the Appellants in this Second Appeal.

(2.) The Plaintiffs filed the suit for mandatory injunction and also for permanent injunction. The case of the Plaintiffs is that one Lizziy Rethnawathy Kesari Amirtharaj, was the owner of 15 cents of property and one Chellammal Wilson purchased 8 1/2 cents from the mother of Lizzic Rethnawathy Kesari Amirtharaj, viz., Sathanam Kesari and the first Plaintiff purchased 7 cents from Lizziy Rethnawathy Kesari Amirtharaj and Santhanam Kesari. The first Plaintiff had constructed a house bearing Door No. 78-B and living in the house along with the second Plaintiff. The said Chellammal Wilson, who purchased 8 1/2 cents from the owner Lizziy Rethnawathy Kesari Amirtharaj, constructed a house and sold the same to the second Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs there is a pathway on the southern side of the Plaintiffs property and it is also situate on the eastern side of the second Defendants house and that pathway connects the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants' house to the Kesari street, situate on the southern side perpendicular to the pathway and the said Kesari Street, also opens into the water tank road which is situate on further South. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that the water tank road is on the higher level than the Kesari Street. Therefore, the rainwater from the water tank road flows into the Kesari Road and thereafter, into the pathway and the rainwater that flows from the water tank road and Kesari road goes through the Defendants' property towards west and drains into the Pipe Villai Street, which lies on the western side of the Defendants house. The Defendants suddenly put up a gate on the western side of the pathway, so as to prevent the natural water flowing from the water tank through the Kesari road and the pathway was going further down towards west and as a result of that, the water collected from the Kesari Streeet and the pathway got stagnated in the pathway and the Plaintiffs' house is on the lower level and by reason of the gate put up by the Defendants in their property, the rain water could not flow towards the western direction and therefore, the suit was filed for mandatory injunction and also for permanent injunction.

(3.) The Defendants filed a statement stating that the property purchased by the Defendants is not a poramboke land and it is patta land and the water tank road is not on the higher level than the Kesari road and the rainwater will not be collected in the pathway from the water tank road and Kesari road and there is no outlet in the Defendants property for the water to go from the Defendants property to the eastern direction and at no point of time, water was flowing through the Defendants property and whenever water got stagnated in the pathway that will be drained in due course. The Defendants also stated in the written statement that the suit is also bad for non-joinder of parties viz., the parties who are owning the properties on the western side of the Defendants property and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.