A plaintiff seeking an injunction must establish a legal right over the property in question, particularly in cases involving government-held land and easement rights.

JUDGMENT :

B SYAMSUNDER, J.

1. The first defendant in O.S.No.246 of 1990 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Eluru, is appellant herein. The first respondent is plaintiff and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the suit.

2. The appellant/Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and first respondent herein after referred to as defendant Nos.1 to 4 and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff/1st respondent instituted the suit against defendants seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore current pipes "P, P1‟ at point "ABCD‟ shown in the plaint plan to its original position in the irrigation channel and to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with current pipes "P, P1‟ at "ABCD‟ point shown in the plaint plan and for costs.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that first defendant is the father of 2nd defendant and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are coolies working under defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff submits that he owns a land to an extent of Ac.2-62 cents in R.S.No.74 and land to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in R.S.No.76 of Chodimella Village, whereas defendants own land to an extent of Ac.3-50 cents in R.S.No.77 and also land to an extent of Ac.4-00 in R.S.No.82 of the same village. It is the contention of the plaintiff that originally all these lands were under the Ayacut of an irrigation tank called "Vangoor tank‟ which was being fed by Tammileru. As the water supply from Tammileru has become most uncertain, the plaintiff and defendants have excavated bore wells and installed electric motors in their respective lands. The plaintiff submits that he got bore well excavated in R.S.No.74 at point "w‟ and obtained electric service connection No.143 and defendants also got excavated bore wells at point "w1‟ in their land. The main contention of the plaintiff is that there is an irrigation channel starting from Vangoor tank it runs across his lands and defendants lands as shown in the plaint plan which terminates at point "T‟, which is meant for cultivating lands of himself and defendants. The plaintiff also submits that for the last one decade neither of the parties have been taking water from the tank as there is no supply, due to that irrigation body is being used for taking water from the bore wells of both parties and then he is cultivating his lands with the water from the said well but inserting two cement pipes P, P1 circumference of each pipe is 12” at points "ABCD‟, below the surface to conveniently cross the irrigation channel, both water and the carts with measurements of 6 x 6 feet. The plaintiff also claimed that there is a seasonal cart track shown in the lands of plaintiff as shown in the plan. The plaintiff claimed cart track and lying of pipes through escalate his land in the Government channel from Vangoor tank. He alleged that he has been using the said channel and cart track acquired the right of easement of necessity. He alleged that due to recent elections some disputes arose between their family and family of defendants due to that defendants bore grudge against him. On 14-05-1990 at 5-00 PM the defendants illegally removed the cement pipes P, P1 shown in the plaint plan, which he questioned but they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, he filed suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

5. The first defendant filed written statement which is adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 4. It is the contention of the first defendant that, channel in question belonged to Governmen