( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 1208 of 1971 on the file of the Court of First Additional District Munsif, Guntur and the first respondent in A. S. No. 80 of 1974 on the file of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guntur is the appellant in this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiff is one for injunction restraining the defendants of their associates from getting the bode Channel dug in the line shown as QS in the plaint plan or in any other direction except in the direction shown as AB in the Plaint plan as sanctioned by the Government, The plaintiff is the owner of a land in Demarcation No. 195 to the North of the land on his brother one, Paleti Veeraiah. It is his t case that the line of the field covered by Demarcation No. 195 is from the South to North. There is a canal called "53 P. B. Subminor Canal". According to the plaintiff two bode canal :according to the plaintiff two bode canals AC and AB shown in the plaint plan have their source from plaint plan have their source from "53 P. B. sub-minor canal" and they were originally sanctioned by the Government to irrigate the lands covered by Demarcation Nos. 211, 210 and 195. The first defendant who is an adjoining owner got a channel dug up to APQ No. 210 as opposed the original bode channel. . The plaintiff and another owner by name G. Kotaiah, who were affected by the new channel, approached the Second defendant and the Engineering Department officials and made several representations protesting against the digging of new bode channel APQ contrary to the original bode channels AC and AB approved by the Government. A registered notice was also issued by the other owner G. Kotaiah protesting against the digging of the new channel APQ. In spite of the registered notice the defendants were digging the channel in continuation from point Q towards East along the line QS as shown in the plaint plant instead AB approved by the Government. The proposed channel according to the plaintiff passes through his land , which is now low lying area and causes a lot of damage to him. The first defendant was trying to dig the channel with the view to save his land and if the channel is dug in the new direction, the plaintiffs land would be affected as the stagnated water cannot be drained away towards south as it is in a higher level. As the new channel was being dug contrary to the approved plan the plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the digging of the channel.

( 3 ) THE first defendant , who is the adjoining owner of the land in Demarcation no. 210 filed a written statement contending that he has nothing to do with the digging of the channel as it is the responsibility of the Government to dig the channel and provide irrigation water to the land holders and that there was no cause of action against him. The second defendant, who is the Executive Engineer, N. S. Canals filed a separate written statement contending that the complaint of the plaintiff is not genuine and that the land was acquired along APQS for the purpose of bode channel and the plaintiff is not entitled to question the digging of the channel along APQS. He has also denied the allegation of the plaintiff that the first defendant got the bode channel dug with the help of the second defendant along the lad APQ contrary to the approved plan. He further raised a plea in the written statement that the suit should fail as no notice under S. 80 C. P. C. was given and that he is neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings the trial Court has framed the following issues:- (1) whether the suit is maintainable against the second defendant without impleading the Government as party; (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for and; (3) whether the second defendant is a necessary party to the suit. On issue No. 2, namely, whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction, after an elaborate consideration of the evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document