GOVINDA NAIDU Vs. KRISHNA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal No. 520 of 1984 arises out of O.S. No. 412 of 71 in which the appellant is the plaintiff and second Appeal No. 145 of 1984 arises out of O.S. No. 337 of 1972 in which the appellants are the defendants. In the suit, O.S.No. 412/71 the appellant (herein) sought for a declaration that the respondent has no right to a take water from his well dug in his private land in S. No. 278 through a sluice of Komati Cheruvu tank and the channel running across the lands of the appellant bearing S. Nos. 291 and 290 and into the land of the respondent in S. No. 289 etc. Similarly, the respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with taking water from the above-mentioned sluice. The trial court dismissed the suit of the respondent and decreed the suit of the appellant. On appeal, the appellate Court reversed the decrees of the trial court. It decreed the suit of the respondent and dismissed the suit of the appellant Thus, the second appeals.

(2.) The material facts not in dispute are that the lands of the appellant and the respondent are registered ayacut lands under Komati Cheruvu tank. A marked channel is the Channel through which the water, when available in Komati Cheruvu, is being drawn to cultivate the lands in the respective survey numbers. In the year 1971, about 6 months prior to the date of the the suit the respondent had deepened his well situated in S. No. 278. During the period when there is no water in Komati Cheruvu, he has formed a channel from his land into the tank and with the aid of an electric pump, he has been drawing water from j the well and through the sluice, he has been taking water from A-marked channel into his land bearing S. No. 289 etc., and has been cultivating the same. The appellant has obstructed his right to take water which necessitated the filing of these two suits.

(3.) Sri Subramanyam, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts have found that the respondent had not acquired any prescriptive right to take water from his deepened well into bis land. Having given that finding, the appellate Court committed error of law in granting injunction in the suit of the respondent and refusing the declaration sought for in the suit of the appellant.