MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. CINNAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants 1 to 4 are the defendants in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.907 of 1982, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to irrigate the properties in terms of suit irrigation kavar; for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the pipe-line laid between the points 'A' and 'B' in the suit property; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from, in any manner, laying the pipe-line further between the points 'A', 'B' and 'C' and thereby diminishing, obstructing and preventing free flow of water to the plaintiffs' land.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the main irrigation kavar starts from popular Mudaliar Vaikkal through sluice No.5 and runs through the lands belonging to the defendants and plaintiffs at survey Nos.376, 377, 378, 423, 424, 405, 379, 406 and 420. According to the plaintiffs, the popular Mudaliar Vaikkal is in existence for more than 22 years at the time of filing the suit and the main irrigation kavar starting from sluice No.5 is also in existence from the inception of the said Mudaliar Vaikkal. The first defendant, who is the owner of Survey No.424, in order to grab and encroach an extent of 0.05 cents, over which, the main irrigation kavar is running, laid a pipe-line on 06.08.1982 in spite of plaintiffs' objections and protests and covered it with mud and thereby prevented the free flow of water to the plaintiffs' land. The main irrigation kavar is the common kavar and therefore, the defendants have no right to lay pipe-line in it, thereby preventing or diminishing the free flow of water to the plaintiffs' land at Survey Nos. 405, 406 and 420. Therefore, they filed the above said suit.

(3.) THE trial Court after framing four issues, has dismissed the suit by its judgement and decree dated 05.01.1987, by holding that the said pipe-line between points 'A' and 'B' were laid with the consent of the respective land owners and that the same was also laid as early as in the year 1970 and consequently, dismissed the suit in its entirety.