N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the present second appeal has been filed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case are as follows.

The plaintiffs are the native of Panaiyur Groups, Aathur Village. The suit is filed in representative capacity. The plaintiffs and others have the Nanja land. The plaintiffs are Ayacutdars in their village and they cultivated more than 80 acres of land. Water source for their irrigation is through the Aathur channel. The defendants 1 to 5 resident of Arasani Group, Veeravalasai, Konthaganenthal Village, are the representatives of the Ayacutdars of the above village. The Government of Tamil Nadu under the Vaigai Periyar Irrigation Scheme constructed the cement irrigation channel for the purpose of providing water for irrigation to the plaintiffs village. The defendants village also there is Kanmai known as Konthaganenthal Channel, situated in the village. The defendants irrigation channel mainly depends on the rain water. The water diverted to the plaintiffs village channel, under the Vaigai Periyar Irrigation Scheme, has not been allotted to the defendants channel. When the matter stood us, the defendants 1 to 5 in order to draw the water from the cement irrigation channel flowing into the plaintiffs village attempted to dig the channels to their village on 17.12.1992. If the defendants are allowed to connect their channels to the plaintiffs village channel, the plaintiffs village Ayacutdars will be suffered and agricultural operation will also be affected. Unless the defendants are restrained from injunction, they were put into irreparable loss. Hence the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from digging up the channel to draw the water flowing into the plaintiffs village under the Vaigai Periyar Irrigation Scheme.

3. It is the case of the defendants 1 to 5 is that their village Ayacutdars are larger than the plaintiffs village. Only in order to supply of water to the Konthaganenthal channel 13(r) cement channels were constructed by the Government. Till 1992, even the plaintiffs Ayacutdar are depending on the rain water. Only when the water was diverted to the plaintiffs village under the Vaigai Periyar Irrigation Scheme, the defendants met then Public Works Department Minister and he has instructed the defendants that if the villagers prepared to dig the channel, the Government is ready to provide water to the village. Only on the instruction of the Minister, the defendants villagers have dug the canal. Similarly, their request to include their village channel, Kanmai under the Vaigai Periyar Irrigation Scheme, is also under pending for consideration before the Government. It is the further case of the defendants is that only the Government has authority to regulate the water supply. There was no cause of action for the suit, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The defendants 6 and 7, who are the Collector and the Executive Engineer, have filed the Written Statements stating that since the channel situated in the plaintiffs village is only non-system and depend on the rain water, the same has not been benefited under the Vaigai Periyar Irrigation Scheme. It is the further case of the defendants 6 and 7 is that the request of the defendants village is also negatived on the ground that since the channel is only non-system canal.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:-

"Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed in the suit."

6. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W. 1 was examined and marked one document as Ex. A1. On the side of the defendants D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and marked 5 documents as Ex. B1 to B5 and Commissioner Report and sketch were marked as Ex. C1 and C2.

7. Based on the evidence and materials on rec