A LAGESAN Vs. RAMANUJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.4.1996 in A.S. No.127 of 1994 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, while delivering the Judgment in A.S. No.127 of 1994. dated 10.4.1996 (in the Appeal preferred by the Appellants/Defendants), has among other things observed that ?it is to be accepted that as prayed for by the Respondent/Plaintiff in the Plaint in the suit land, as seen from the Commissioner?s Report, though AB Channel, the Arumpattu lake water flows and in the said channel, the Appellants/Defendants have destroyed the ?DC portion? and further, the water is not flowing to the land of the Respondent/Plaintiff and moreover, the appellants/Defendants in AB Channel have no right to destroy any portion? and consequently, confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court in regard to grant of the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and dismissed the Appeal with costs.

(3.) THE Trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a resultant conclusion that ?in the suit property though channel AB, the Respondent/Plaintiff has cultivated the land and further, it is held that the Appellants/Defendants have not spelt out any reason as to why they have destroyed the DC portion and accordingly, granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and furthermore, granted the relief of mandatory injunction and decreed the Suit with costs. It also granted two months? time to execute the relief of mandatory injunction.