RAMA ODAYAN Vs. SUBRAMANIA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case, as admitted or found, are stated in the judgment of my learned brother, which I have had the advantage of reading.

(2.) It seems to me that whether we regard the relations between the plaintiff and Government, with reference to the supply of water as contractual, the view taken in Chinnappa Mudaliar V/s. Sikka Naikan (1900) I.L.R. 24 M. 36, or whether we regard the plaintiff's right to the water of the channel as a proprietary right appurtenant to the ownership of the land - in either view, I think the injunction which has been granted can be sustained without any express finding that actual damage has been suffered by the plaintiff.

(3.) Assuming the rights of the plaintiff as against the Government to be contractual, I do not think it is necessary in order to uphold the injunction which has been granted to pray in aid the principle of the decisions in Temperton V/s. Russell (1893) I.Q.B. 715 and Quinn V/s. Leatham (1903) A.C., 495. In fact, I doubt whether the principle of these decisions has any application to the present case. This is not, a case of inducing a man to break his contract with a third party. No question of combination - the fact there are more defendants than one does not show combination - or of conspiracy to injure arises. If an act has been done by the defendants, which deprives the plaintiff of the enjoyment of a contractual right - assuming the right to be contractual I think, subject to the question of damage to the plaintiff, which I will deal with later, the plaintiff has a right of action against the defendants.