P BULLIYYA Vs. D PEDA VEERAJU DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.138/89 in the court of the District Munsif, Prattipadu, They filed a suit for a mandatory injunction for restoring channel marked as XYZ of a length of about 285 sq. yards and width of 11/2 yards. In brief their case is that they were taking water to their lands through the said channel and that the defendants who are the owners of the neighbouring land have unauthorisedly closed this channel on 22-7-89. They have filed petition I.A.490/89 for grant of a temporary mandatory injunction. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case that they were taking water through the said channel and it was closed by the defendants and granted temporary mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the channel till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by that the defendants filed this revision.

(2.) Since both the courts have found that the channel was existing and that the plaintiffs were taking water to their lands through the channel and that the defendants closed it based upon the material placed before it, that finding of fact arrived at by both the courts cannot be reagitated in this revision.

(3.) But the contention of Mr. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners is (1) a temporary mandatory injunction can be granted only to restore the status quo as on the date of the filing of the suit and since the channel was already closed on the date of the suit a temporary mandatory injunction cannot be granted. (2) If any loss caused to the plaintiffs can be compensated in terms of money, then no temporary mandatory injunction can be granted.