Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1562
Madras High Court
K. RAVICHANDRA BAABU, J.
Muthusamy Gounder & Others
Versus
Cinnappa Gounder & Others
S.A.No.821 of 1995
Decided on : 29-03-2012
For the Appellants:S. Anand Chandrasekar for Sarvabhavan Associates, Advocates.
The act of preventing or diminishing water flow gives rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit is not barred by limitation.
Headnote:
irrigation kavar - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, Article 113 - Summary: The plaintiffs sought declaration and injunction against the defendants for laying a pipe-line that obstructed water flow to their land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The second appeal considered whether the relief of mandatory injunction was barred by limitation. The court found that the act of preventing or diminishing water flow gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit was not barred by limitation. The lower appellate court's decree was upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against the defendants for laying a pipe-line that obstructed water flow to their land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the act of preventing or diminishing water flow gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit was not barred by limitation. The lower appellate court's decree was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the pipe-line was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of preventing or diminishing water flow gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit was not barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the lower appellate court's decree was upheld.
1. The appellants 1 to 4 are the defendants in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.907 of 1982, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to irrigate the properties in terms of suit irrigation kavar; for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the pipe-line laid between the points 'A' and 'B' in the suit property; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from, in any manner, laying the pipe-line further between the points 'A', 'B' and 'C' and thereby diminishing, obstructing and preventing free flow of water to the plaintiffs' land.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the main irrigation kavar starts from popular Mudaliar Vaikkal through sluice No.5 and runs through the lands belonging to the defendants and plaintiffs at survey Nos.376, 377, 378, 423, 424, 405, 379, 406 and 420. According to the plaintiffs, the popular Mudaliar Vaikkal is in existence for more than 22 years at the time of filing the suit and the main irrigation kavar starting from sluice No.5 is also in existence from the inception of the said Mudaliar Vaikkal. The first defendant, who is the owner of Survey No.424, in order to grab and encroach an extent of 0.05 cents, over which, the main irrigation kavar is running, laid a pipe-line on 06.08.1982 in spite of plaintiffs' objections and protests and covered it with mud and thereby prevented the free flow of water to the plaintiffs' land. The main irrigation kavar is the common kavar and therefore, the defendants have no right to lay pipe-line in it, thereby preventing or diminishing the free flow of water to the plaintiffs' land at Survey Nos. 405, 406 and 420. Therefore, they filed the above said suit.
3. The defendants contested the said suit by stating that the suit kavar does not start from sluice No.5 and the main irrigation kavar has also not been laid by the Public Works Department by acquiring any of the land belonging to plaintiffs or defendants. On the other hand, only with an understanding between the land owners, namely, plaintiffs and defendants, the irrigation kavar was made in the year 1970 and also by laying a concrete cement pipe line between point 'A' and 'B'. Therefore, according to the defendants, the pipe-line between the points 'A' and 'B' had been laid as early as in the year 1970 and therefore, it is not correct to say that the first defendant had laid the pipeline on 06.08.1982 as alleged by the plaintiffs. It is also stated by the defendants that free flow of water is not affected or reduced land because of the laying of the pipe-line between point 'A' and 'B'. In the additional statement filed by the first defendant, it is stated that the pipe-line between point 'A' and 'B' had been laid in the year 1970 with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title and as such it is a permanent structure and it can not be removed.
4. The trial Court after framing four issues, has dismissed the suit by its judgement and decree dated 05.01.1987, by holding that the said pipe-line between points 'A' and 'B' were laid with the consent of the respective land owners and that the same was also laid as early as in the year 1970 and consequently, dismissed the suit in its entirety.
5. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Karur in A.S.No.89 of 1989 and the learned Subordinate Judge, after framing six issues through his judgement and decree dated 28.03.1995, reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for, by holding that the suit main irrigation kavar is the common irrigation kavar to all the parties and consequently, when the water to the plaintiffs' land is diminished or reduced, they are entitled to file the suit and therefore, they get a fresh cause of action as
