SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 173

J.R.MUDHOLKAR, K.SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL
Patneedi Rudrayya – Appellant
Versus
Velugubantla Venkayya – Respondent


Advocates:
K.Bhimasankaran, K.R.CHAUDHARY, T.V.R.TATACHARI

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Madras High Court in a second appeal reversing the decrees of the two courts below.

2. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us is the owner of survey No. 159 of the village Vemulavada while defendants 1. and 2 are owners of survey No. 158 lying to the north of survey No. 159 and adjoining. The defendant No. 3 is the owner of a field lying to the north of survey No.158. To the south of survey No. 159 is survey No. 160 belonging to the brother of the plaintiff. Immediately beyond this field and to the south are a "parallel drain", into which flow the waters of the Vakada drain, and Tulyabhaga drain both running west to east. It would appear that the parallel drain is an artificial drain while the Tulyabhaga is a natural drain. The parallel drain ends abruptly at the eastern end of survey No. 150 (sic) at a distance of about two furlongs or so to the east of survey No. 160.

3. According to the plaintiff rain water falling on survey Nos. 160 and 159 flows in the northern direction over survey No. 158 and then enters into a drain shown in the map and indicated by the letters EE. In normal times the wa

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top