HARI PRASAD SAHU Vs. ROPNA KHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff who filed a suit against the defendant for damages and an injunction not to construct a bundh in the defendant's plot No. 1580 in village Simdega. It came before the Subdivisional Officer Munsif of Simdega who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff after holding a local inspection.

(2.) The lower Appellate Court disposed of the appeal after referring to the case of both the parties in the following terms: The main facts at issue are largely dependent on a knowledge of the locality and of the lie of the land. The Subdivisional Officer Munsif wisely held a local view. This local view appears decisive. He found that the respondent's case was correct. The natural flow of the water was southeastward from the respondent's land on to the appellant's land. It was carried along the eastern boundary of plots 1583 and 1578 (appellant's plot) by a deep nulla and so on to the appellant's land. The water had been diverted northward along plot 1580 which naturally slopes upward from the south, and is on a much higher level than appellant's plots 2259 and 2100. The respondent had only constructed a small bundh about the height of an ordinary ahl and this would not be sufficient to break the appellant's ahl as alleged by him. The depth and strength of the south-eastward flow of the nulla was in itself sufficient to break the appellant's ahl. On this finding of fact from the Subdivisional Officer Munsif's personal view I agree that the appellant has no cause of action and dismiss the appeal.

(3.) From this it would be clear that the lower Appellate Court based its finding entirely upon the observations made by the learned Subdivisional Officer Munsif of Simdega and not upon the evidence adduced in the case. In fact, there is no discussion of any other evidence adduced in the case in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court.