VELUGUBANTLA NARAYYA Vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit against the Provincial Government, Madras, represented by Collector, East Godavari, for a declaration that the land or site of the proposed channel belonged to him and for an injunction restraining the defendant from digging any channel in the plaintiff's lands, S. Nos. 132, 133 and 134 of Surampalem village and for other reliefs. The defendant contended that the channel was a supply channel to Raju tank, that the bed of the channel belonged to the Government and that they were entitled to restore the channel to its original condition. The District Munsif decreed the suit; but, on appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. He held that the plaintiff failed to make out that the bed belonged to him and that the acts of the Government are unauthorised. The plaintiff has consequently filed the Second Appeal.

(2.) The two questions that arise for consideration in the Second Appeal are, whether a channel existed and whether it is a supply channel, as contended by the Government. The plaintiff who has come to Court praying for a declaration and injunction has not produced his patta to enable the Court to ascertain what exactly was granted to him. The several documents referred to by the Subordinate Judge in paragraphs 9 to 14 clearly show that a channel existed on the land. The case of the plaintiff that there was no channel is not true.

(3.) The next question is, whether the bed of the channel belonged to the plaintiff. There is no definite evidence as to the origin of the stream. It is not clear whether it has been in existence before the ryotwari settlement or when it formed. The karnam examined as D.W. 5 states that "from the last 40 years and above, water is flowing through red-line kaluva". In the descriptive memoir of Surampalem marked as Exhibit B-9, it is stated as follows:-