CHANDGI RAM Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an anneal by the defendants against an order of the Appellate Court passed under Order 41, Rule 23, C. P. C. remanding a suit for disposal on merits. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on a preliminary point.

(2.) RAMJI Lal is a tenant of Khasra No. 10 situated in village Sanwlod. Chandgi Ram defendant No. 1 is a tenant of Khasra No. 25 and Sukha and Baldeo defendants nos. 2 and 3 are tenants of Khasra No. 12. The plaintiff claims that he has a right of access to his field through Khasra No. 25 and along the mendh of Khasra No. 12. He has brought the present suit for a deciara- tion of his right of passage and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with it. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff and they being tenants of a common landlord namely the State, the plaintiff could not acquire any right of easement, over their tenancy lands for the beneficial enjoyment of his land in view of the provisions cf Section 12, Easements Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This contention was accepted by the Trial court which dismissed the suit on this preliminary ground. On appeal the learned District Judge set aside the decision of the Trial Court following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Nagarethna mudaliar v. Sami Pillai, AIR 1936 Mad 682. That suit was brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to discharge not only the rain water but also the water utilised for irrigation purposes brought on to his land from adjoining channel into the land of defendant No. 1 and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from causing obstruction to the flow. The geographical configuration of the lands of the plaintiff and of the surrounding lands was such that the lands of the plaintiff could not drain themselves in any other manner. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were however tenants cf the same landlord. The learned Judge upheld the right of the plaintiff. So far as the right to discharge rain water was concerned it was a natural right inherent in property as shown by illustration (i) to Section 7 of the Act. The question of discharging water received from the irrigation channel presented some difficulty. The learned Judge referred to the decision in Sankarappa Naicker v. Pari Naicker. AIR 1915 Mad 852, in which the following passage from Kerr on Injunctions was cited to show the extent of the right as understood in English Law :

(3.) THEN the learned Judge referred to the decision In Doralswami Muttiriyan v. Muttachi, AIR 1918 Mad 97, in which Sadasiva lyer, J. who was inclined to extend the right even to water brought on to land for irrigation purposes observed :