NURIGANTI NARAYANA REDDY Vs. GOLLA LAKSHMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for an injunction directing the defendants to remove the stone embankment put up by them and to allow the flow of water from the plaintff's land into their fields and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the mori re-constructing it to its original state.

(2.) Unfortunately in this case, the plaintiff has not filed any plan along with the plaint nor did he ask for the appointment of a commissioner to prepare a plan and note the respective features of the lands belonging to the parties. But the defendants have supplied a plan. The plaintiff purchased the land comprised in S.No. 232 of Isivi village. It is the plaintiff's case that, along the border between S. Nos. 232 and 233 belonging to the defendants, the defendants raised an embankment intially and that there was a mori in S. No. 232 to allow water from the higher level to S. No. 233, which is on a lower level. After the plaint was filed, the mori was also destroyed. A suitable amendment was asked for and granted. The defendant's plea was that the stone embankment was in existence for a long time and that there was no mori at all. It is their further case that water from S. No. 232 flows through a channel into the field on its west to S. No. 247 and from thence to a channel to the west of S. No. 247. It is common ground that S. No. 232 is on a higher level than S. No. 233 or the other S. Nos. to the south of it. It is also common ground that S. No. 247 also is on a lower level. Merely on the ground of levels, the case cannot be decided because S. No. 247 also is on a lower level than S. No. 232. The real question that has to be decided in this case is whether there was a mori in existene for a number of years, which would allow the water from the plaintiff's field, S.No. 232 into the defendant's field, S.No. 233 and whether the defendants obstructed such a flow of water by constructing the stone embankment. There are two photographs in this case, Exhibits A-1, and A-2, which purport to show the mori and the enbankment after it was constructed. I am not expressing any view on the question whether those two photographs represent the true and correct state of affairs. I have only referred to them.

(3.) Before the trial, the then District Munsif made a local inspection of the locality in the presence of both Advocates and the parties. His notes of inspection are as follows :