KARRI RAMULU Vs. NIYLARU ADINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the upper riparian owners have got a right to take the water by cross bunding the flow of water from the natural stream for the purpose of irrigation within the meaning of Section 7 (h) of the Indian EASEMENTS ACT, 1882.

(2.) The case in short is that the defendants are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs filed a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the natural flow of water in a stream by putting the cross-bund across the stream and thereby diminishing the quantity of water which the lower riparian owners like that of the plaintiffs, are entitled to. The trial Court decreed the suit and also awarded damages in a sum of Rs. 2,000-00. On appeal, this decree was modified as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contends that when once it is found by the lower appellate Court that it is a natural stream where the flow is not by any artificial feeding, then it is open to the upper riparian owners to take the water even by cross bunding as much as it is necessary for the purposes of irrigating the lands. This he puts on the strength of a decision reported in Emani Lakshminarasu Avadhanulu and others vs. Secretary of State wherein it was observed that the right of a riparian owner is not restricted to lifting water from a natural stream and carrying it at once to the land, but extends to temporary storage of the water in wells before carrying it on to the irrigation lands.