GADAPALLI SEETHARAMA SWAMI Vs. SECYOF STATE FOR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for injunction and for damages. The plaintiff is the owner of jiroyti land S. No. 784 in Peddapuram. This land was situated south of tank called Venkatapathiraju tank. The plaintiff complained that the defendants extended the tank towards the east, shifted the bye wash of the tank from north-west to the north-east and in the year 1916 bunded the bye-wash, so as to enlarge the water spread of the tank and cause submersion to plaintiff's land namely, S. No. 784. Plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,000 as damage.

(2.) The 1 defendant is the Secretary of State for India and defendants 2 to 6 are the ryotwari tenants under Government, whose lands are irrigated by the tank and whose lands would be benefited by an increase of the water-spread of the tank. The District Munsif found that the tank proper should be confined to S. No. 775 and did not extend to S. No. 760, as contended by the defendants 2 to 6, that it was not possible to say when the by wash, was changed from the west to east, but that the western outlet was closed, as the result of the opening up of a road and that the eastern outlet was bunded up, by the defendants causing damage to the plaintiff. He also found that defendants 2 to 6 were responsible for the opening up-of the eastern outlet and that the 1 defendant was also responsible inasmuch as he attempted to support the action of defendants 2 to 6 through his officers, that the plaintiff sustained damage to the extent of one thousand rupees and accordingly gave a decree.

(3.) On appeal, the Subordinate Judge finds in paragraph 9. All that we see from the records,, maintained by the Government, is that Survey No. 775 is the tank bed.... The Government says that its tank is only in Survey No. 775. The bed of the tank: and the bund must necessarily be confined to that number but, as a matter of fact, we see that the tank extends some hundreds of feet, beyond its eastern limits and all this length is covered by fields of private owners, the bund also being owned by them. The Government has not made any attempt to extend the tank bund openly and as of right, but permitted the bed to drift for itself, according to the whims and the caprices of the adjacent owners.