R VELLINGIRI Vs. KUPPATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, unable to resist the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, successfully before the courts below, have filed this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit for declaration that she is entitled to the drainage channel, indicated as 'C D E F' in the plaint plan and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants on the grounds that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, including the drainage channel, in which the defendants/appellants have no right of any kind to interfere; but contrary, they are attempting to lay a claim, which should be prevented by way of declaration, followed by permanent injunction.

(3.) The appellants/defendants, questioning the averments in the plaint in toto, would contend that for the last several years, the parties were draining the drainage water through the suit drain, that this customary right was attempted to be prevented by the plaintiff by illegal method, by laying a pipe, which was prevented, that in the common drain situate in the common lane, the plaintiff has no right, either to obliterate it or alter the character, in order to construct a new drain and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.