The plaintiff's claim of easementary right was not maintainable as he failed to seek the relief of declaration despite the denial of his right by the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhavani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.01.2007 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhavani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.01.2007 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

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

3. The defendants in O.S.No.4 of 2006 are the appellants in this second appeal.

4. Suit for permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is the owner of the properties in the suit village comprised in R.S. Nos. 112/1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 ancestrally as well as by way of purchase under the sale deeds dated 30.01.1984 and 04.12.2003 and the first defendant is the owner of the properties in the suit village comprised in R.S. Nos. 112/2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 17 and there has been a common Well belonging to the plaintiff and the first defendant in R.S. No. 112/2 and as the said Well had become dilapidated, the plaintiff has put up a Well separately in R.S. No. 112/1 and drawing water from the Well by installing a 5 HP Motor Pumbset for the past 40 years and similarly, the first defendant has also put up a Well separately in R.S. No. 112/3 and drawing water from the Well by installing a separate Pumpset and irrigating his lands and for the past 30 years, the plaintiff has been drawing water and irrigating his lands only through the pipeline laid underneath his lands as well as the land belonging to the first defendant in R.S. No. 112/9 and the pipeline laid underneath in R.S. No. 112/9 is the suit property and the same has been depicted in the plaint plan and the plaintiff has easementary right in taking water through the suit property i.e. the pipeline laid underneath in R.S. No. 112/9 belonging to the first defendant and as he had been using the said pipeline for the past 30 years to irrigate his lands, he has also acquired easementary right over the same by way of prescription. While so, the defendants, on account of enmity over grazing of cattle in the land, attempted to obstruct the plaintiff from taking water through the underground pipeline laid in R.S. No. 112/9 i.e. the suit property and if the defendants endeavour to cut the pipeline, the plaintiff will put to irreparable loss and hardship and hence, with a view to injunct the defendants from cutting the pipeline, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendants, in the written statement, would put forth the case that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the allegation that the plaintiff was taking water to his field through S.F.No.112/9 is denied and the suit property belongs to the first defendant and had never been used by the plaintiff to take water through the same and the water drawn by the plaintiff from his Well after reaching S.F. No. 112/8 was let into Mayyappan's land, which is adjoining S.F. No. 112/9 on the East and the channel was formed north to south to the east of S.F. No. 112/9 in Mayyappan's land and thereafter, the water from the channel was diverted to S.F. No. 112/10 and this was arrangement whereby water had been taken by the plaintiff over the ground and about 4 or 5 years ago, the plaintiff had laid the underground pipeline in his land and he made arrangement for the flow of water from his underground pipe to the channel in Mayyappan's land on the East of S.F. No. 112/9