S SIVAKUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TWAD BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.170 of 1999 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.296 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. THE respondents are the defendants in the suit.

(3.) THE brief case of the first defendant is as follows:(i) According to the first defendant, pipe line water in question is running from Sooraur to Narimanam, M/s.Madras Refineries Limited, Petro Chemical Complex for a distance of 12.6 kms. That there is a pumping station at Sooranur, which gets water from six bore wells around and on collection of the water at Sooranur, the water is being pumped by powerful electric motor pumps to Narimanam Oil Refinery by pipe line. THE supply of water and laying of pipe line etc., was the offspring of an agreement between M/s.Madras Refineries Limited and the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board (a corporation formed by Government of Tamil Nadu). (ii) According to the first defendant, the work of laying the pipe line was undertaken by the contractors of the TWAD Board in the month of August 1992 itself. THE work undertaken by TWAD Board was on a time bound basis. Keeping the national interest in the mind, the work was done without delay. THE trench was to a depth of 1.2 metres and a width of about 1.2 meters to a length of about 200 feet.(iii) According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs are very much aware of the laying of the pipe line in his field and also the alignment taken to lay such pipe line. THE work was carried on for nearly 3 days because, the deviation is given much care to be taken and special attention was focussed. (iv) According to the first defendant, even after notice, the plaintiffs kept quiet till the filing of suit in the year 1995. According to the first defendant, by notice dated 20.10.1994, the plaintiff abandoned their claim or right to claim for removal of pipes and choose to claim only damages caused by leakage. No demand has been made for removal of pipes in the notice dated 20.10.1994. THErefore, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.