THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF TIRUCHIRAPALLI Vs. S. KRISHNASAMI AYYANGAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal arises from the decree of the Additional District Judge of Tiruchirappalli in A.S. No. 220 of 1955 reversing that of the District Munsiff: of Tiruchirappalli in O.S. No. 411 of 1951. The State of Madras represented by the Collector of Tiruchirappalli, the defendant in the; suit, is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs as the riparian owners of the Uyyankondan river in Tiruchirappalli district were entitled to bale out water from the river free of tax for the irrigation of their inam lands in Sendanipuram village, and for refund of Rs. 100 collected from them by way of tax. Inam Sendanipuram which comprises of an extent of 144.29 acres is a hamlet of the village of Varaganeri in Tiruchirapalli District. It was originally granted as a personal inam to one Karibulla Sahib in 1875 by the Carnatic rulers. The grant was recognised and confirmed by the British Government. Ex. D -3 is an extract of the fair inam register in regard to this village. The northern boundary of Sendanipuram is Uyyankondan river This river is connected with the river Cauveri and it is said to have been in existence from time immemorial. Respondents who were successors in interest to the grantee of the inam have been irrigating the nanja lands with the river water. As the lands are in a level higher than the level of the water of the river the respondents have constructed six picotas in the; river, one of them being in the middle of the river for the purpose of raising the water. The structures are masonry ones. Admittedly the Government did not levy any cess for the taking of water by the respondents all these years till 1950. It is stated that owing to enmity between the respondents and the karnams, a cess was levied for the first time in F. 1359, which cess the plaintiffs -respondents paid under protest. The respondents claimed that they were entitled to take water from the river for agricultural purposes by reason of the riparian rights that they had in respect of the waters in the river, and that they were not liable to pay the tax levied by the Government. They, therefore filed the suit as stated above.

(3.) THE District Munsiff held that Uyyankondan river was not a natural stream but a Government channel, that there was no evidence of any express or implied engagement for the supply of water by the Government, and that therefore the respondents were liable for the cess levied on them. On those findings, he dismissed the suit.