SHANMUGHAM Vs. RATHINASWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as follows:-

(3.) THE ruling of the Apex Court cited supra is squarely applicable to the case on hand and therefore, I am not persuaded to accept the case of the defendants, in preventing the plaintiff from making use of the common channel to irrigate his lands from his new private well, as it would hamper plaintiff's agricultural operations, in turn, it would reduce the agricultural production of the plaintiffs. As such, I am in complete agreement with the views taken by the courts below, that the plaintiff is entitled to have a declaration that he is entitled to take water from his new private well through the common channel to his lands and the same cannot be prevented by the defendants. THE questions raised are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.