The central legal point established in the judgment is the precedence of customary rights in India, particularly in the context of tank irrigation and the rights of ryots to water for cultivation.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The parties to this appeal are ryots cultivating lands in the neighbourhood of the Kadamba tank in the Tinnevelly District. The tank Which is a large one is fed from a river through a channel flowing into the tank at its northern extremity. A bund running from North to South causes the water to spread during the monsoon season to a line beyond the boundaries of the lands cultivated by the appellants. It is, admitted that from time immemorial these lands have been submerged for several weeks in the year after the tank has filled as the result of the rains. The withdrawal of water from the tank for the purpose of the cultivation of the lands falling within the ayacut causes the water to recede gradually from the appellants lands and when this has happened they are fit for cultivation. The appellants and their predecessors have accepted tenancies of these lands knowing that they would be completely submerged for part of the year. In 1898 the appellants predecessors erected bunds to prevent the submersion. This caused some of the water in. the tank to escape over the weir and lessened the supply which the ryots in the ayacut were accustomed to receive. They naturally objected to the erection of these bunds and as the result of their objection the Revenue authorities caused them to be demolished. Notwithstanding the action of the Revenue authorities similar bunds were erected in 1899, 1904, 1907 and 1924. Except in the year 1924 the Revenue authorities stepped in immediately and caused the protective earthworks to be demolished. In 1924, however, the Revenue authorities refused to interfere as they considered that the bunds erected by the appellants were merely field ridges and the loss of water was inconsiderable. The question was not finally decided until the 29th March, 1927 when the Board of Revenue agreed with the Subordinate Revenue Officers that no substantial loss had been suffered by the ryots in the ayacut as the result of the erection of the "bunds. The Boards order caused the respondents 1 to 4 who are ryots cultivating lands within the ayacut to file the suit out of which this appeal arises. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below that the bunds are more than field ridges and that the respondents have in consequence suffered material diminution in their customary supply of water. It is now clear that the. Board was misinformed.

2. The suit was filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Srivaikuntam. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled by prescription and custom to prevent the appellants interfering with the spread of the water in the tank. The District Munsif found against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge "held that the District Munsif as wrong and issued a mandatory injunction, requiring the appellants to remove the bunds which they had erected. The appellants then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Wadsworth, J., who agreed with the Subordinate Judge but gave a certificate which has permitted the present appeal to be filed under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent.

3. Much has been said in the course of the litigation with regard to rights which are recognised by the English Common Law, and in this Court the learned advocate for the appellants has con-tended that an owner of land has always the right under the Common Law of England to prevent his land being submerged. Assuming this to be so, it is, however, manifest that principles which can be applied in England are not always applicable here. The conditions in England are very different from the conditions in this country and the Court must have regard to the principles which have been applied in India when questions have arisen affecting the rights of ryots to their customary supply of water . for the purpose of cultivation. In many parts of the Madras Presidency the storage of water in tanks is essential if crops are to be raised, and agriculture provid