MAHARANI RAJROOP KOER Vs. SYED ABUL HOSSEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a suit brought by Maharajah Bam Kissen Singh Bahadur to establish an asserted right to a pyne or artificial watercourse, arid also to a tal or reservoir, and the water flowing from them through another estate to his own, and to obtain the removal of certain obstructions in the pyne. The Maharani, the present Appellant, is his widow. Several questions arising in the suit have been finally disposed of in the Courts below, leaving for the decision of their Lordships the main question, which arose on the special appeal before the High Court, as to the effect of the Statute of Limitations upon two of the obstructions complained of.

(2.) THE facts necessary to raise this question may be shortly stated: The Maharajah and his ancestors were the owners of mehal Sunout Purwurya, in the district of Gya; and the Defendants were the owners of an estate called mouzah Mora. The system of irrigation claimed by the Plaintiff embraces an artificial pyne which is fed by a natural river at a point to the south of the Defendants' mouzah. The pyne, which runs from the south in a northerly direction, after traversing other estates, enters mouzah Mora, and runs through it, and afterwards through other lands to the Defendants' mehal. There is, branching from the main pyne, a channel or smaller pyne which helps to feed the tal claimed by the Plaintiff. The tal lies near the foot of some hills, and is fed partly by the water which runs through the channel connected with the pyne, and partly by the rainfall from these hills. It appears that there is another channel in a lower part of the tal which runs from it and joins the pyne at a point near a bridge, described in the Moonsiflf's map. It is said there were doors or sluices in the bridge by which the flow of the water had been to some extent regulated, but no question now arises with regard to them. The obstructions complained of were twelve in number, consisting of dams, cuts, and other modes of obstructing or diverting the water from the pyne.

(3.) IT was found in the Courts below that all the obstructions were unauthorized; and the Plaintiff has succeeded below as to all the obstructions, except two, which are numbered No. 3 and No. 10. No. 3 is a khund or channel cut in the side of the pyne at a point below the bridge which has been spoken of. No. 10 is a dhonga, also below the bridge, and consists of hollow palm trees so placed as to draw off the water in the pyne for the purpose of irrigating the Defendants' land. No question arises here as to the fact that those two works are an interruption of the Plaintiff's right; and ho would be entitled to succeed as to them, as he has succeeded as to the other obstructions, unless he is prevented from so doing by the operation of the Statute of Limitations.