KANDIA GOUNDAN Vs. PALANI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal involves a very interesting question of the liability of a person who changes the course of a channel for damages to a neighbouring owner whose lands were flooded by excessive rainfall.

(2.) THE Appellant is the owner of some lands on which he had raised chrysanthemum (Javanthi) crop. The defendant -respondent is the owner of the land situated at some distance to the east of the plaintiff's land and his land is on a higher level than the plaintiff's land. The defendant's land, survey field 345/2 was originally a Kuttai or pond which used to receive the water drawn from the adjacent lands. It was assigned by the Government for cultivation to one Abdul Salam Saheb by Ex. D -2 in the year 1932. He made some improvements on the land by raising me level of the pond and the very purpose of the darkhast grant was to permit me grantee to raise crops on the kuttai which could only be done by filling up the pond, There was a surplus channel flowing northward from this pond leading to a pa lam or a deep hollow. Abdul Salam put up a bund across the head of the cnannel and opened a new channel to the east of it diverting water along the new water -course running northwards into the same pallam or deep hollow.

(3.) IN 1937 Abdul Salam sold the land to the defendant -respondent by Ex. D -1. The respondent got the patta transferred to his name and made some further improver ments by still further raising the level of the pond and by blocking up the bund at the head of the old northward surplus drainage channel. On the 10th June, 1941, there was an unusually heavy rain, the like of which had not been seen for several years past. The plaintiff's land was flooded and considerable damage was caused to the Chamanthi flower crop. The present suit was filed for recovering damages for the loss of that crop. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the plain -tiff's suit though on different grounds and hence this second appeal.