The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of property rights, specifically the Appellants/Defendants' right to let out drainage water and roof rainwater in the suit property.

1. The Appellants/Defendants 2 to 4 have preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1997 in A.S.No.186 of 1994 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.1994 in O.S.No.897 of 1990 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.

2. The Plaint Facts:

(i) In the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff has averred that a Rough Plan is filed to explain the properties of respective parties. In the Rough Plain, the suit property is shown as P and that the Appellants/Defendants 1 to 4 properties are mentioned as D, D1 and that the Defendants house drainage water letting out portion is shown as X and the rain water which falls on the roof through the property points which shown as X1, X2. From X point, the drainage water to proceed on the northern side, a new ditch has been constructed is shown in red colour.

(ii) The suit property and on the eastern side presently the property belonging to one Kandasamy originally have been purchased from the Respondent/Plaintiffs grandfather Sappani Gounder on 04.05.1910 and at that time, thatched houses have been in existence. After Sappani Gounder purchasing the property and his brother has sold the eastern side of the suit property and the property in possession of Kandasamy to another person and that property is in possession of Kandasamy presently.

(iii) After the Respondent/Plaintiffs grandfathers purchase, the thatched houses which have been in existence in the suit property have been removed and he enjoyed the property, by constructing a storied house. In the front and western side of the storied house, vacant space has been left out and the said vacant spaces have been utilised by the Respondent/Plaintiffs grandfather as front entry and also as lane. After the death of Respondent/Plaintiffs grandfather, the suit property has been enjoyed by the Respondent/Plaintiffs father in his Heirship capacity. After the death of Respondent/Plaintiffs father, the Respondent/Plaintiff has acquired the suit property by inheritance and has been in enjoyment of the same. The Respondent/Plaintiff has paid the House Tax. The 1st Defendant (later deceased) has purchased the property recently and has enjoyed the same. At the time of his purchase in the portion mentioned as D in the Rough Plan only a tiled house has been in existence. After purchase, the 1st Defendant has newly constructed the tiled houses in D1 portion as shown in Rough Plan. The eastern side wall of Defendants houses have been built in their boundaries itself. The Defendants or their predecessors in title at any point of time have no lands are in enjoyment of the portion of the Defendants houses east of their wall .

(iv) The 1st Defendant, during the last month of March, has been letting out the drainage water by constructing a ditch for the purpose of letting out his houses drainage water to take out the same on the northern side of the street by putting a hole in X point and has encroached upon the land of the Respondent/Plaintiff by constructing a water tank and has constructed a ditch from the tank upto the street portion. Likewise, the roof water from the houses constructed in D1 portion, to fall in the portion of the Respondent/Plaintiff in X1, X2 places, metal sheets have been placed and the water has been let out in that fashion. Inspite of the Respondent/Plaintiff preventing the same, the 1st Defendant with the help of men have completed the work.

(v) The entire land which is situated on the eastern side of the Defendants houses wall belongs to the Respondent/Plaintiff absolutely and he is in enjoyment of the same. The Defendants have unlawfully in Respondent/Plaintiffs land constructed a ditch and in D1 portion to let out the roof rain water in Respondent/Plaintiffs land has placed metal sheets. Because of the unlawful act of the 1st Defendant, heavy damage and loss has occurred to the 1st Respondent/1st Defendants property.