VISWANATHA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE second defendant is the appellant in this second Appeal. The suit was filed for a declaration that a tank comprised in R. S. 97/1 measuring 4 acres 14 cents in the village of Kotha Tummalapalli was common to all the villagers and for an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 4 from obstructing the plaintiff s user of the tank water for himself, his men and cattle and from diverting the tank water to their seed bed lands for the purpose of raising seedlings thereon. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and substantially decreed by the appellate court. The sole plaintiff is the contesting respondent in this second appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it is urged that the suit should have been dismissed because (1) the tank is the private family property of defendants 2 and 3; (2) the suit has not been instituted with the sanction of the Advocate-General under Sec. 92 Civil Procedure code; and (3) the suit has not been instituted in conformity with procedure prescribed by Order 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code. On the first point, the lower Appellate Court has found that the tank in question is not the private property of the family of defendants 2 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document