ARUMUGHAM Vs. DHANAPAL MUDALI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is the appellant before me. He filed O.S. No. 752 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the irrigation rights over the suit well beyond their own holding in S.No. 209 of Srinivasapuram village. According to the plaintiff, he was the absolute owner of S.No. 209/1 covering an extent of 32 cents and another 21 cents on the eastern side, while the defendants were the owners of 12 cents comprised in S.No. 209/2. In the property of the defendants there is an irrigation well, which is the common source of irrigation for the entire extent of 65 cents in S.No. 2091. To the extent of the plaintiff's holding, he will be entitled to take water. The defendants have attempted to take water to the other fields also, and hence, the suit.

(2.) In defence, it was contended that according to the custom and usage of the village on a co -operative basis betel vine cultivation was carried on, and along with the suit well, there are three other wells and water from all these wells is taken, for irrigating the various survey numbers. It is not correct to contend that the suit well irrigates only these two survey numbers. There is no exclusive right as far as the plaintiff is concerned. The third defendant and 19th Pangudharars were raising betel vine in 10 acres and for all these lands, water was supplied only from the well in S.No. 209/2. The dispute arose because the defendants wanted to install an electric motor instead of an oil pump for drawing water.

(3.) The learned District Munsif, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and accordingly he decreed the suit. On appeal, in A.S. No. 106 of 1972 the learned Subordinate Judge of (sic) reversed the judgment of the trial Court, and hence, the present second appeal.