Mere attestation with proof it creates an estoppel.

The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for a declaration of his right easement through the channel marked as A, B, C, D, E in the plaint plan and as described the Schedule to the plaint, for an injunction retraining the defendants from interfering the enjoyment and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the schedule channel shown as A, B, E, F in the plaint plan. The case of the plaintiff is that purchased an extent of 2 acres and 67 cents in S.Nos.246/1 and 248/4 from Tiripurasundari Ammal for Rs.1,000 under the registered sale deed dated 4.6.1959. It is also his case he purchased another extent of 49 cents to the south of the said 2 acres and 67 cents and thus he was entitled to an extent of 3 acres and 15 cents in that area. According to under the sale deed in his favour, he was given right to take water from the maduvu on north through a channel to the east of the land purchased by him as described as A, B, in the plan. He said that he was enjoying the channel ever since his purchase and it was easement by grant as well as necessity. His further case is that on account misunderstanding with defendants, who are father and sons, are attempting to efface channel and they had obliterated A, B, E, F in the plaint plan. Hence he prayed for the as set out earlier.

2. The defendants contested the suit denying the claim of the plaintiff contending plaintiff had no right whatever, and there was no channel in existence as claimed plaintiff and claiming title under Exs.B-2, B-3 and B-1, dated 9.7.1962, 17.7.1962 9.10.1972 respectively.

3. The trial court appointed a Commissioner who inspected the property and submitted report as to the existing physical features. The trial court found that the plaintiff has out a case that he is entitled to take water from the maduvu through the channel lands and granted a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, Chengleput, has reversed the conclusion of the trial court and dismissed the suit.

4. Even at the outset it should be said that the conclusion of the lower appellate court, say the least, is perverse. The learned Subordinate Judge has closed his eyes to the staring on the face of the court and has placed reliance on irrelevant matters to hold the plaintiff.

5. The case of the plaintiff is made out by a sale deed under which he purchased Tiripurasundari Ammal marked as Ex.A-1 dated 4.6.1959. There is a clear recital document that the purchaser was entitled to take water from the maduvu through a at the end of the land. It is not in dispute that Tiripurasundari Ammal was also the owner the land which was sold to the defendants. After selling to the plaintiff under Ex.A 4.6.1959, she sold adjacent portion of the land to Ellammal under Ex.A-4 on the same She also sold the other adjacent lands which are now owned by the defendants, to achala Naicker under Ex.B-2 on 9.7.1962 and Ex.B-5 on 20.8.1962. The said Venkatachala Naicker sold in turn to the 1st defendant under Ex.B-1 on 9.10.1972. The 1st defendant also purchased other lands from Chinnakulandai Ammal under Ex.B-3 on 17.7.1962.

6. The Commissioner who inspected the suit property found that there was a channel existence in a portion of the land marked as BCDE; that there was no channel in the marked as ABEF, but there was only a ridge of about 12 feet width; that there was a like provision at the point AF for bailing out water, indicating thereby that water would bailed out from the maduvu at that place. When the Commissioner has found that there a channel in existence in BCDE, it is quite natural and probable that the channel existed ABEF also. The channel that is found on the southern side should certainly have existed the northern side as otherwise, the water could not have been taken from the maduvu point AF to the plaintiff ’ s lands. But for ABEF, the portion marked as BCDE would have of no use whatever to the plaintiff.

7. The following passages found in the