The central legal point established in the judgment is the right to water under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 7, and the evidentiary value of public documents in proving such rights.

1. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from effacing the channel in 'B' Schedule property and interfering with the plaintiff's right of taking water through the plan marked channel shown in the 'B' schedule property to irrigate the 'A' schedule properties.

2. The plaintiff is the owner of the properties described in the Schedule 'A'. He had got the same by way of partition between himself and his brother through a registered partition deed dated 02.12.2002. A patta was also obtained by him and the plaintiff has been cultivating the lands. Item Nos.1 to 7 of the 'A' schedule properties are wet lands (“TAMIL”), being irrigated from the Perathur lake comprised in survey No.190. It is stated that there is a well formed plan channel from the lake passing through survey Nos.126, 38, 39 and 40. The channel, which passes through survey No.40, ends on the South Eastern corner of the suit item No.5 and 6, that is, survey Nos.33/1 and 33/2. The plaintiff derives water through his land to irrigate his other lands. The plaintiff also had filed the Field Map Book (FMB) copies issued by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of the PErathur village in support of his case. The defendant is the owner of the property in Survey No.40. The defendant with mala fide intention is trying to efface the lake channel passing through the properties in survey No.40. If the defendant is allowed to efface the channel, the plaintiff, who is the owner of the wet lands, will be put to loss and hardship. Hence, the suit is filed for permanent injunction.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the plaintiff has got no manner of any right in survey No.40 and he also has no right to irrigate the lands through survey No.40. It is the defendant's specific case that the plaintiff never used survey No.40 for irrigating his land and there was no channel in survey No.40 at all. The VAO himself has certified that there is no channel in Survey Nos.40/1 and 40/2. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 before the trial court and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10, while the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.7.

5. Both the Courts below have unanimously held that the plaintiff had not established his case and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal is preferred.

6. The following questions of law were formulated at the time of admission:

a. Whether the trial court is right in holding that when a public document is denied to be false by another public servant (surveyor), that too in his report without subjecting himself to cross-examination, with regard to existence of a water channel, it would be burden on the part of the plaintiff, that the water channel existed and that he was using it for several years by some other evidence?

b. Whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the plaintiff should have proved his case as to existence of water channel, apart from the Field Map Book issued by the Revenue Department of the State Government?

c. Whether the Courts below are right in denying the relief of non-effacement of water channel, holding that though Ex.A.5 and Ex.B.1 indicates the existence of a water channel, since the surveyor and the defendant denied the same, as also supported by the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Surveyor's Report had indicated otherwise?

d. Whether the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Surveyor's Report, could supersede a public document, especially when the defendant's document also indicate water channel as a boundary; or in other words, whether the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Surveyor's Report has got any evidentiary value, when the FMB sketch issued by the Government and also the defendant documents indicates existence of the water channel?

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. According t