The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment over the channel was not justified.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007 passed in A.S.No.58 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.594 of 2001 on the file the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007 passed in A.S.No.58 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.594 of 2001 on the file the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

2. The second appeal has been laid by the defendants in O.S.No.594 of 2001.

3. Suit for Permanent Injunction.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, according to the plaintiff, the suit properties, as described in the plaint schedule, belonged to the plaintiff’s husband Govindanaickar and after his demise, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with her sons and the plaintiff had executed a gift deed on 16.11.1995 in respect of the suit properties in favour of her sons and as the manager of the family, she is still contining to enjoy the suit properties, as her eldest son Sankar is at abroad and the other sons are minors. The defendants are the adjoining land owners of the plaintiff. In survey No.165/4E described in the plaint schedule, there is a Well and 5 H.P. Electricity Service Connection and the same belongs to the plaintiff and the water from the said Well is drawn through the channel in survey No.165/4G for the purpose of irrigating the plaintiff’s land located in survey No.165/4H and the channel has been in existence for the past 30 years and continuously, the plaintiff’s family has been irrigating their lands located in survey No.165/4H only through the abovesaid channel located in the defendants’ land in survey No.165/4G. Till the defendants dug out a Well in their lands, even for the defendants’ land, the source of irrigation is only the plaintiff’s Well situated in survey No.165/4E and the defendants without any authority or right attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s enjoyment in drawing water from the Well located in survey No.165/4E to irrigate the land located in survey No.165/4H through the channel running in the defendants’ land located in survey No.165/4G and hence, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for Permanent Injunction.

6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s case contending that the Well located in survey No.165/4E is not the source of irrigation for the plaintiff’s land located in survey No.165/4H and according to the defendants, the plaintiff has no right of channel in the defendants’ land and attempted to utilise the channel right by trespassing into the defendants’ land for the past one year and the defendants have a share in the Well in survey No.165/4E and the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants over the enjoyment of their respective shares in the Well located in survey No.165/4E and following the same, a panchayat was convened and as per the decision of the panchayatars, the defendants have to dig a Well in their land and the plaintiff should not use the channel running through the defendants’ land and further, the defendants should also not claim any right thereafter in the Well situated in survey No.165/4E. The defendants had been enjoying their share in the Well in survey No.165/4E by installing oil engine for irrigating their lands. The defendants had acquired their land by way of a sale deed dated 08.07.1986 and there is no channel in the defendants’ land as alleged in the plaint and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief with reference to the right in the non-existent of channel and hence, the suit for p