NYNAPPA SERVAI Vs. VEERAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs represent the Kudivaramdar of the village of Muruppanandal of which trustee of Tirukkakalakudi Devastanam is the Melvramdar. The lower Court have held that the defendAnt Nos. 1 to 7 and the tenth defendant are not entitled to irrigate certain land in the Nattandal village with the water of the tank in the plaintiffs village.

(2.) It is found that the lands of the plaintiffs have been cultivated as wet lands from time immemorial; that the water in the tank is hardly sufficient to irrigate them and the supply of this tank water for the irrigation of other lands must, therefore necessarily cause damage to the plaintiffs. It is also found that the lands held by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in the Nettandal village, which under an agreement with the tenth defendant, they are attEmpt to irrigate with this tank water, are new lands which were not hitherto supplied with water from this tank.

(3.) It is now argued on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 7, the appellants before us, that the relation between the plaintiffs and the tenth defendant is only contractual and, therefore, the plaintiffs remedy, if any, is only against him, and the decision in Chinnappa Mudaliar v. Sikka Naicken 24 M. 36 is relied upon in support of this contention. That ruling has reference to the liability of the Crown to supply water to a ryot. It dissents from an earlier ruling in Ramachandra V/s. Naryanasami 16 M. 333 and is dissented from in a later decision by Subrahmania Ayyar, J. in Sanharavadivelu Pilli V/s. Secretary of State for India 23 M. 72 at p. 81; 15 M.L.J. 32.