Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 875
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
Chinnapillai @ Perumal - Appellant
Versus
Peruma & Others - Respondents
Second Appeal Nos.1455 and 1456 of 1999
Decided On : 25 June 2003
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of easementary rights under the Easements Act, particularly the requirement of open and peaceful enjoyment of the easementary right for twenty years to establish the right.
Headnote:
Easementary Right - Water Channel Dispute - [Easements Act, Section 15, 52] - The court discussed the plaintiff's easementary right to take water from K.R.P Dam east-west water channel through the defendant's land to her land. The key legal provisions of the Easements Act, particularly Section 15 and 52, were interpreted to determine the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the plaintiff's right to easement and the necessity of proving open and peaceful enjoyment of the easementary right for twenty years.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought declaration of easementary right and enjoyment over the K.R.P.Dam water channel, mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction in the channel, and recovery of damages. The defendant denied the plaintiff's easementary right and claimed no right over the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parties were entitled to the rights exercised by the common owner of the properties. The court noted that the appellant had obstructed the respondents from enjoying their share of water and directed the appellant to remove the obstruction. The court granted declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction to both parties, and dismissed the claim for damages.
Issues: The issues involved in the suit included the entitlement to declaration, mandatory injunction, and damages, as well as the relief each party was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both parties were entitled to the rights exercised by the common owner, and directed the appellant to remove the obstruction caused to the respondents' enjoyment of water. The court also clarified that neither party was entitled to damages.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal No.1456 of 1999 was allowed, decreeing the suit for the appellant and restoring the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1998. The Second Appeal No.1455 of 1999 was dismissed, and a decree was granted in favor of the respondents in their suit in O.S.No.142 of 1990. No costs were awarded.
Second Appeal No.1455 of 1999 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1999 made in A.S.No.88 of 1998 by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, thereby allowing the appeal without costs, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1988 in O.S.No.142 of 1990 by the Court of District Munsif, Krishnagiri and decreeing the suit for declaration of the plaintiff's easementary right to take water from K.R.P Dam east-west water channel through the defendant's land to her land and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to form a channel from K.R.P dam east west channel through the defendant's land. It was further ordered that as and when the Commissioner is appointed to execute the decree for mandatory injunction, the Commissioner shall locate the portion of the land, which is convenient to both parties if a channel is formed and that there will be no order as to costs.
2. Tracing the history of the above Second Appeal coming to be preferred by the defendant in the suit, it comes to be known that the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for declaration of the plaintiff's easementary right and enjoyment over the K.R.P.Dam water channel, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction in the channel and for recovery of Rs.1,000/- per year from the defendant towards damages caused to the crops till the date of opening the channel and enforcement of the plaintiff's easementary right, on averments such as that the plaintiff purchased the suit 'A' schedule property from one Raman alias Ramasami and his sons Ramasami and Govindasami under a sale deed dated 25.9.1975 that the plaintiff got the 'B' schedule property under a sale deed dated 5.9.1989 for a sale consideration of Rs.7000/-; that she joined the said two pieces of land into one and enjoying the same ever since the date of construction of K.R.P. Dam water channel and got right to take water through it; that she is also paying charges for water; that the channel from the K.R.P dam is running from west to east; that the plaintiff and defendant have obtained sale from one and the same person and both of them have got right in the channel; that the channel is 120.2 feet breadth; that since the defendant failed in his attempt to obtain sale from the plaintiff, he obstructed and caused damage to the crops when the plaintiff cultivated rice in Vaikasi 1989; that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,000/- per year towards the value of damages; that the plaintiff has got easementary right over the water channel and she is enjoying the same for the last 20 years; that the plaintiff sent a reply dated 6.2.1990 to the notice dated 18.12.1989 issued by the defendant; and hence the suit for declaration of her easementary right and enjoyment over the K.R.P.Dam water channel, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction in the channel and to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per year to the plaintiff as damages caused to the crops till the date of opening the channel, and enforcement of the plaintiff's easementary right.
3. On the contrary, the defendant in his written statement would state that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant has not claimed any right over the same; that the land of the defendant is adjacent to the suit property, that the K.R.P dam water channel is not running through the land of the defendant; that no right of water was given under the sale deeds; that the channel in the suit property running from west to east is not separately going through the defendant's land; that if the channel was 120.2 feet breadth, the defendant has no intention to purchase the suit property; that there was no incident happened in the month of Vaikasi 1989; that it is false averment that there was a loss caused to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per year; that it is also false to say that the plaintiff has got easementary right over the K.R.P dam wat
