Right of ryotwari proprietor to water.

Plaintiffs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Nadamuthur and Chinnamuthur against the villagers of Periamuthur and the Province of Madras, for a declaration that they were entitled to the usual mamool supply and distribution of the water of the Desabandam channel taking off from the south Pennar river, for 24 hours as against 12 hours of the defendants, or, in the alternative, for effecting any other fair and equitable distribution of the water flowing in the channel in proportion to the respective wet ayacut extents of the three villages. There was also a claim for Rs. 100 by way of damages against the defendants. The suit has been dismissed by the Courts below,

From the channel styled the Dasabandam channel taking off from the south Pennar river, the wet lands in the three villages have been irrigated from a long time. The channel is an artificial channel which vests in the Government. The extent of wet cultivation in the two villages of the plaintiffs is 100 acres while the extent of wet cultivation in the defendants’ village is 75 acres, but the lands of the defendants’ village are on a higher level and water has to be baled out from the channel. The second defendant who is the Dasabandam inamdar has the duty of keeping the channel in good repair. It may be stated that all the three villages are ryotwari villages and there have been, since 1939, quarrels between these villagers regarding the distribution of the water flowing in this channel, which culminated in an order of the Sub-Collector of Hosur, dated 13th March, 1940, by which he directed that the village of Periamuthur should have 12 hours of exclusive supply during day time and the villages of the plaintiffs should have their turn of 12 hours during night time. The order of the Sub-Collector was confirmed on 1st May, 1940, by the Collector of Salem. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by this order, have brought the present suit.

Several witnesses have been examined in the case and some documents have been filed to prove the usual method of distribution by turns of the channel water before the disputes arose between the parties. On this point both the Courts below found that there was no documentary evidence, or acceptable oral evidence, to prove the usage set up by the plaintiffs regarding the turn of water. It was also held by the Courts below that the mode of distribution now ordered by the Collector was not an unfair or inequitable distribution of the channel water having regard to the lie of the lands and the needs of the villagers. It was also held by the Courts below that the plaintiffs have not been damnified to any extent by the order of the Government regulating the supply of water and therefore their claim for damages was unsustainable.

Mr. T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar for the appellants has challenged the findings of the Courts below on all these points. In my opinion it is unnecessary to consider many of the matters adverted to in the course of the arguments by the learned counsel in view of the allegations in the pleadings and the finding that no injury or damage has been caused to the plaintiffs.

Beginning with Krishna Aiyar v. Vencatachala Mudali1, it has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that the Government has a right to distribute the water of Government channels among ryotwari proprietors holding wet lands in the ayacut of the channel the only limitation on their power being that they should not disturb existing arrangements for the supply of water without providing an equally convenient source of supply of water necessary and sufficient for the cultivation of their wet lands. The rights and obligations as between the Government and ryotwari proprietors in the matter of the supply of water for irrigation purposes rest largely on custom and usage and they have been expounded in the decisions of this Court from time to