Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant and the question between him and the plaintiff relates to their respective rights to use the water of a thodu or channel passing to the east of their lands. The plan Ex. P-8 prepared by the Commissioner shows the relative positions of the fields of the plaintiff and the defendant and the thodu. The lower Courts have restricted the right of enjoyment of the water of this thodu by the defendant in accordance with what they considered to be the true meaning of the karar or compromise that was entered into between the parties in the year 1913, Ex. P-i and a decree in O.S. No. 393 of 1912, a copy of which has been marked as Ex. P-4. The defendant does not seem to have any grievance against the decrees of the lower Courts in so far as they restrict him to use the water of the channel for particular lands belonging to him but not for other lands which he has converted into garden after the date of the compromise. His chief complaint is that he has been wrongfully asked to close the pond Y in the field marked G.H.F.E. in the Commissioners plan. A mandatory injunction was issued against him to close this pond on the ground t