L KUMARASWAMY Vs. K SELLAKKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The S.A.Nos.1400 of 2003 and 1401 of 2003 are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 30.01.2003 passed in A.S.Nos.83 and 82 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode confirming the common judgment and decree dated 30.04.2002 passed in O.S.Nos.109 of 2000 and 40 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodumudi.

(2.) O.S.No.109 of 2000 has been laid for permanent injunction O.S.No.40 of 2001 has been laid declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

(3.) The case of the appellants in both matters in brief is that the first appellant purchased the first item of the suit properties on 14.02.1996 and the second appellant purchased the second item of the suit properties on 15.02.1996 from M.Venkatesan respectively and accordingly since the date of purchase, the appellants had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties acquired by them by paying Kists etc., and on the southern side of the said properties, the respondents are cultivating the properties and the first respondent is cultivating and extent of 0.50 acts in RSF No.53 as lessee and the second respondent is cultivating an extent of 0.50 acres in RSF No.52 and 53 as a lessee and the third respondent owns lands of an extent of 3 acres in RSF No.308 and the appellants are irrigating their properties with Kalingarayan canal water from the sluice Manangadu since the date of the purchase and the respondents have no right over the above said sluice and having a separate source of irrigation for irrigating their lands with the different sluice and on the other hand, the respondents attempted to take water from the sluice Manangadu madhagu to which they are not entitled to and thereby interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the properties acquired by the appellants, according to the appellants, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the respondents in O.S.No.109 of 2000 and further , it is the case of the appellants that the respondents are not entittled to obtain the reliefs claimed in the suit laid by them in O.S.No.40 of 2001 and prayed for the dismissal of the said suit.