KAYAMBU SERVAI Vs. KARUPPIAH SERVAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant before me. He filed a suit for an injunction against defendants 2 to 6 restraining them from taking water from Panikkananthal tank to their lands situated in the village of Kulanthapuri. He also wanted an injunction directing the defendants to restore a part of a channel which they were alleged to have destroyed and also an injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's taking water to his wet lands in Panikkananthal village through the channel A, A -1 to A -8. He claimed another relief about the defendants having put up a pipe at a point "S" in the tank but both the Courts have found against the plaintiff in connection with that matter and the second appeal does not deal with this point. The learned District Munsiff found all the other points in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal by defendants 2 to 6 the Subordinate Judge reversed the rinding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE findings of fact come to by the appellate Court are these: The lands of the defendants though in the village of Kulanthapuri were permitted to take water from Panikkananthal village and the defendants have been accordingly taking water for over 15 years. Those lands have been converted into nanja lands and pattas have been also issued to them treating them as nanja lands even from 1928 onwards. The allegation that the defendants destroyed a portion of the channel A, A -1 to A -8 is found to be untrue and the further case of the plaintiff during trial, that subsequent to the institution of the suit they destroyed some other portions of the said channel is also found to be untrue. The appellate Court found that only about 3 acres of plaintiff's lands were nanja lands and the rest were only punja lands. It is further found that so far as the plaintiff's lands are concerned, only a part of it was originally mamool nanja and the rest has been converted into nanja only from about 1935. The appellate Judge has also found accepting the I evidence of D.Ws. 2 and 4 that there is enough water in the tank for the cultivation, of all the mamool nanja lands in the ayacut of the village and for the cultivation of defendants lands in question.

(3.) LEAVE to appeal is refused.