1. The dispute in this case relates to the use of the water in a tank in an agraharam. The plaintiffs and the defendants own lands in that agraharam which is about 922 acres in extent. Of that, about 110 acres are wet lands. The plaintiffs case is, that of these 110 acres, 53-54 acres represent the wet ayacut under the suit tank. The defendants, it is alleged, attempted to convert a part of their dry land in the village into wet land by using the water of the tank. On that ground, the plaintiffs have asked inter alia for an injunction restraining the defendants from illegally using the water.

2. The District Munsif has held that the ayacut under the suit tank is 53-54 acres and that the defendants act in irrigating a plot not comprised in this area, with the water of the tank, is wrongful and accordingly has granted the injunction to the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the proper remedy is a suit for partition and not an injunction and on that ground has reversed the Munsifs judgment on this point. He, however, has confirmed the decree passed by the District Munsif for damages.

3. The main contention on behalf of the defence is, that the various sharer