CHANDRABHAN SINGH Vs. SHITAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the in-stance of the defendant, has been 'directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-3-1979, passed bv the 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. in C- A. No. 1-B of 1978, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 24-12-1977, passed by the Civil. Judge. Class II. Sihora. in C. S. No. 24-.B of 1977.

(2.) The plaintiff's field, bearing. Kh, No. 199 and the defendant's field bearing Kh. No. 192 are situated adjacent to each other. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit against the defendant appellant claiming damages to the time of Rs. 4000/- on the ground that the plaintiff's field was at a higher level while that of the defendant was at a lower level, and the water of his field used to flow out from a Modha, through the field of the defendant. But in May 1975. the defendant made an embankment in his field whereby the said Modha was closed as a result of which the water from the field of the plaintiff could not be drained out causing damage to his paddy crop. The plaintiff contended that normally he used to raise crop of 30-40 bags of paddy but due to the damage caused to it, he could get only 4 bags of paddy that year. He thus lost about 36 bags of paddy, the value of which at the rate of Rs. 125/- per bag was claimed. He also contended that in the proceedings under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the Tahsildar, Sihora. had directed the defendant not to obstruct the flow of water from the plaintiff's field but the defendant did not comply with it.

(3.) The defendant-appellant contested the suit by contending that the water from the plaintiff's field used to How through his field since about. 8-10 years only. He also took the plea that since the slope of his field is towards south, he was unable to irrigate his entire field due to flood and hence he had made an embankment from east to west after making an arrangement for flow of water of the plaintiff's field. He further averred that there was a small tank on the western side of the plaintiff's field bearing Kh. No. 200 and there being heavy rains in the year 1975, the said tank had flooded, and the excessive flow of water of that tank also flooded the plaintiff's as well as the defendant's fields so much so that the embankment made by the defendant gave way. He took the plea that the crop of the plaintiff and the defendant was damaged by the flood and not because of the embankment made by him. He also denied that the plaintiff's field normally yielded 30-40 bags of paddy and averred that it yielded only 15 bags of paddy and in the relevant year, the plaintiff had received 12 bags of paddy because sowing was not done' by him in time and the heavy rains had damaged the crop. The rate of paddy :was also disputed.