SALAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Vellore in A. S. No. 224 of 1991, the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 17 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupathur have filed the second appeal.

(2.) THE said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of recovery of Rs. 15,500/= as compensation with future interest from the defendants with the following allegations. The property involved in the suit viz. , a well and attached lands are belonging to the plaintiffs by purchase by the first plaintiff on 24. 4. 1964 and the second plaintiff on 7. 7. 1969 through registered sale deeds. The well is common to both the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are cultivating the lands with the help of the said well. While so, in September, 1983, the second defendant and one Junior Engineer came there and without obtaining sanction of the plaintiffs, they damaged the well and closed the same by putting mud inside the well by taking the mud from the lands of the plaintiffs. Therefore, because of the highhanded action of the defendants, the plaintiffs have claimed Rs. 10,000/= for the purpose of digging the well again and Rs. 3000/= for levelling the land. The plaintiffs also issued notice to the defendants on 3. 10. 1983 for which the first defendant alone has given reply notice on 18. 10. 1983 with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiffs happened to file the suit.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the first defendant only by filing written statement with false allegations. The well in question was not in good condition and during September, 1983, there was heavy rain in Govindapuram village and due to the heavy rain, Govindapuram tank was likely to breach and the well in question became damaged due to its location adjacent to the bund and it got damaged by the mud drained from the bund. The first plaintiff, no doubt, is residing in a thatched house adjacent to the tank bund and there was a situation that the bund may breach at any time because of heavy rain. The first defendant had to make the bund strong by putting mud upon the bund from the land of the plaintiffs with their consent. But, for the said action of the first defendant, there would have been breach upon the bund and damage to the Vaniyambadi Town and the Railway Station. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs as if the defendants highhandedly, without consent of the plaintiffs, damaged the well by digging mud from their lands, etc. , are false and incorrect and thereby the suit is liable to be dismissed.