B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants in O. S. No. 763 of 1983 and the respondents in A. S. No. 82 of 1987 who suffered a decree in the appeal before the learned Additional district Judge, Warangal on 20-7-1988 have come up with this appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the appellant in the appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by opening a channel or digging etc. It was dismissed. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif and consequently passed a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. That is how the appellants who are defendants in the suit and the respondents in the appeal are aggrieved and present this appeal.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of S. No. 49 measuring Ac. 2. 32 guntas situated at Obulapur Village, which is the suit property. There is a rivulet known as Jalu Vagu abutting the land of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are the younger brothers of the first defendant. Their lands bearing S. Nos. 42, 43 and 45 of the same village situate abutting on the northern side of the suit land. The suit Land of the plaintiff and the lands of the defendants are wet lands. The plaintiff and the defendants have been making use of the water from Jalu Vagu since a long time. However, the plaintiff dug a well in the suit land for her benefit. The plaintiff alleged that there was no channel in the suit land and the defendants were making use of the water from Jalu Vagu which was over flowing on the suit land. But according to her, the defendants tried to dig a channel over the suit land and damage it and thereby interfered with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore she sought for relief of permanent injunction. The defendants contended that they have got a right to take water from Jalu Vagu over the suit land through the channel which existed since a long time and they did not actually obstruct the right of the plaintiff to enjoy the property except they attempted to take water through the alleged channel over the suit land. In the meanwhile, the parties approached the District Collector, Warangal and also Tahsildar, Ghanpur who had passed certain orders in regard to the use of water by the parties from jalu Vagu. The following issues were settled in the suit. "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? 2. To what relief ?"the learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that the defendants were entitled to take water from Jalu Vagu through the suit land and by taking water they did not interfere with the plaintiff s right and possession of the suit property and accordingly held issue No. l against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge disagreed with the learned district Munsif and came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the defendants were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff under the guise of taking water and by attempting to dig a channel therein and thus held issue No. l in the affirmative and consequently allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for permanent injunction.

( 3 ) SRI Surender Rao, the learned advocate for the appellants has contended that from the admitted facts in the case the defendants were entitled to take water from Jalu Vagu through the suit land as their lands are situated abutting the suit land, and they had no other source of water. It is also his contention that from the evidence it was clear that a channel actually existed on the suit land which came to be closed about ten or fifteen years back and the defendants were making use of the said channel for the purpose of drawing water to their land as and when

Click Here to Read the rest of this document