(VATHI) VEERABHADRAYYA Vs. TANGADU SANYASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal by plaintiffs against the decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ganjam, in Appeal Suit No. 32 of 1920.

(2.) The only question in this second appeal is whether the appeal was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in Second Appeal No. 1103 of 1914. The suit out of which the appeal arises was for the removal of elevations of earth raised by the defendants in the Batte marked C in the plan not shown here and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing in any manner the free flow of water to the Versirikajola tank marked A in the plan, according to mamool, along the Batte C. Both the Courts have held that the decision in the previous litigation operated as res judicata.

(3.) The previous suit out of which Second Appeal No. 1103 of 1914 arose was instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of the Batte C after removing certain obstructions put up, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from meddling with or causing any manner of damage as would cause any obstruction or hindrance to the free flow of water through the said Batte from the Balabanda tank to the Versirikajola tank. In that suit the District Munsif found that the Batte C to C-4 in the plan filed in that suit was a source of supply to the plaintiffs tank of Versirikajola but he also found that the defendants were also entitled to the use of the water that flowed along the Batte for the irrigation of their eastern lands, and that the plaintiffs were entitled only to the remnant of the water, and as the suit was for a declaration of the plaintiffs absolute rights and for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking water that flowed along the batte, he dismissed the suit.