JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff in O. S. No. 255 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3. They together own a half share in the land and well in S. No. 33 in Negamam village, whereas the other half share belongs to the plaintiff. Likewise, the defendants own a half share in S. Nos. 31 and 35 of the same village, whereas the other half share belongs to the plaintiff. It is the common case of the parties that the well in S. No. 33 is being enjoyed in common by turns, the plaintiff using the well continuously for the first six days and the defendants likewise using for a similar period subsequently to irrigate their respective shares in S. Nos. 31, 33 and 35. There is a common channel lying in the eastern extremity of S. No. 33. East of that channel, the position of which is indicated in the Commissioner's plan Ex. C-2, there is survey No. 24 in which the defendants are entitled to an extent of 10 cents. In that extent of 10 cents they have sunk a well in which they have installed an electric pump and pump set. From that well, the defendants have laid a channel which joins the common channel and by such connection, the defendants bale out water from the well in S. No. 24 and take water through the common channel for the purpose of irrigating their shares in S. Nos. 33 and 35. The plaintiff laid this suit for a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to use the common channel for the purpose of taking water from their well in S. No. 24 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making use of the common channel for the purpose of taking water from the well in S. No. 24. The defendants contended that by their using the common channel during their turn of enjoyment of the common well, the plaintiff was in no way prejudiced and that, as common owners of the channel, they were entitled to use it even for taking water from their well in S. No. 24. The District Munsif found against the defendants holding that the use of the channel by the defendants for taking water from their well is likely to affect the rights of the plaintiff, and in that view, decreed the suit. In the appeal preferred by the defendants, the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore took a different view holding that the defendants were entitled to use the common channel during their turn even for taking water from their private well in S. No. 24 as such user did not infringe or affect the rights of the plaintiff in any way. In that view, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed hence this second appeal.

2. The question for consideration is whether the defendants, the common owners of the channel are entitled to use it, during their turn of enjoyment, for taking water from their exclusive well. The plaintiff has not alleged in the plaint nor has he let in evidence to show that by the use of the common channel by the defendants for taking water from their well, his right is in any way affected. Nor is it his case that by such user, the channel is in any way or is likely to be damaged or injured. All that he contends is that the common channel is intended to be used only for taking water from the common well and that the defendants cannot use the channel to take water from their exclusive well. Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Iyer, appearing for the appellant-plaintiff, contended that in principle this case is in no way different from a case of the enjoyment of a common well by a co-owner to irrigate a land, which was not previously irrigated by the well prior to the partition between co-owners, and argued that if a co-owner of a well cannot use the well to irrigate a land which was not previously irrigated by that well in the same way, the co-owner of a common channel cannot use it for the purpose of taking water from a well which does not belong in common to the owners of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document