MUNNALURI VENKATESWARLU Vs. VADDULA NARASI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reference has been made in a Letters Patent Appeal, against the order by our learned brother, Umamaheswaram, J., directing the lower appellate court to determine the merits of the appeal and the Memo of cross-objections filed in that Court.

(2.) The suit out of which the aforesaid appeal and the cross-objections have arisen was for a mandatory and a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have claimed that there was a donka between their fields, shown as A and B in the sketch attached to the plaint and that of the 1st defendant shown as C in the sketch and that the rain water from the defendants as well as other fields towards the north used to flow through the donka towards the south, the donka having been marked as D, D-1, D-2 and D-3 in the, plaint sketch map. The plaintiffs case further is that the Highways Department had laid a road in the middle of the donka, having on either side of the road a channel for rain water to flow from the adjoining field.The next part of the plaintiffs case is that the 1st defendant in collaboration with the 2nd defendant who is a maistri in the Highways Department, had cut the new road to the width of about five yards and had raised the height of the western bund in the 2nd plaintiffs field and also the level of his own land, so as to bring it on a level with the road. The plaintiffs complain that these acts have prevented the rain waters from flowing along with channel left by the Highways Department on the defendants side of the new road and have caused diversion through the breach in the road, with the result that the entire water now rushes and enun-dates the plaintiffs land.

(3.) They have therefore claimed a mandatory injunction to fill in the breach in the road, and to remove the bund raised on the 1st defendants land. They have further asked for permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering with the flow of water in the canal along bis side of the field.