CHANTI CHINA VENKATAREDDI Vs. KURASANI KOTI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the easementary right of the plaintiff to let off rain water discharged from the western plots A and A-1 towards east across the plots B and B-1 belonging to the defendants and for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the elevated portion CD as per plaint plan. It was contended that water used to flow in the natural way since a very long time from A, A-1 plots to B, B-1 plots towards east into the poramboke land. The lie of the land is from west to east and south to north. It was alleged that the defendants dug up two wells and dug channels also. The earth so removed was placed along the ridge CD thereby preventing the water from A, A-1 plots to flow into B, B-1 plots with the result that the water was stagnating and causing damage to the lands of the plaintiff.

(2.) The contention of the 1st defendant, who is the appellant before me, was that the lie of the land is not from west to east, that the water never flowed in the way in which it is alleged by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff never exercised any easementary right. The CD ridge is an old ridge. The rainwater according to the 1st defendant flows from south-north upto the point of J and takes a turn towards east and flows into the 2nd defendants land. The said defendant admits that he dug a well about three years back and irrigated his lands, He also said that the plaintiff has not exercised the right within two years prior to the suit and as such the suit would be time-barred.

(3.) I am not concerned with the defence set up by the 2nd defendant as nothing turns upon that. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties upheld the contention of the plaintiff and decreed his suit. The matter was then carried in appeal but the 1st defendant was not successful.