NAGAPPA GOUNDER Vs. SUBBIAH GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.959 of 1994 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. They have filed a suit against the respondents/defendants seeking the relief of direction directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as damages for the act of non co-operation in digging the well found in the suit schedule property. By judgment and decree dated 24.12.1997, the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, decreed the suit with costs. In the appeal, by judgment and decree dated 18.06.1999, the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved their case and thereby they are not entitled any relief and ultimately, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court with this present second appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described by the trial Court.

(3.) The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- The lands in Survey No.596/2A measuring to an extent of 2 Acres 33 cents with a well, was belonging to the first plaintiff, his brother Keththappan and to his father Subbaiah Gounder. In the partition, all those three persons divided the said property into three equal shares and enjoying the same by using the water available in the common well. Meanwhile, the defendants purchased 1/3rd share from the plaintiff's brother. Apart from the said 1/3rd share, on the northern side of the road adjacent to the suit property, the defendants owned their individual land with the well. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs wanted to deepen the common well, but the same was prevented by the plaintiff. Hence O.S.No.634 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants in interfering with deepening of the well or in the alternative for partitioning the well. In the said suit, during the time of trial the defendants gave evidence that they will not pay any amount for deepening the well, but when the water gets too much I will take it. In respect to the prayer of injunction, the said suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed on 16.02.1993. After granting the said relief in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants filed the stay petition before the Court which granted the said relief in favour of the plaintiffs stating that he is going to file an appeal. However after the said suit, the plaintiffs herein had cultivated the cotton crop. On the other hand, the defendants prevented the plaintiffs from deepening the well by saying that a stay petition is pending. Due to the said act committed by the defendants the plaintiffs incurred a loss of Rs.10,000.00. Further because of the interference made by the defendants the cotton crop cultivated in the land unable to reap. Hence, the notice was issued to the defendants on 06.08.1994. Hence, the suit.