Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
SASIDHARAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
MANIYAMMA – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal | RSA NO. 1128 OF 2012 | Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara | Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam | O.S No.394/2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Rajasekharan Pillai
For the Respondents: S.Sasikumar
Appellants cannot disrupt natural water flow, and plaintiffs possess lawful rights to maintain existing channels.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 39 - Injunction - Suit for prohibitory injunction against the defendant for cutting a new water channel through plaintiff's property - Trial court decreed the suit, confirming prior findings of fact - Judgment upheld regarding the absence of a well-defined channel as claimed by the defendant. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Law of Easements - Natural rights regarding water flow and obstructions - Plaintiffs entitled to prevent unauthorized alteration of water pathways, emphasizing established legal rights. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendant preventing the construction of a water channel that purportedly did not exist, fearing destruction to their property. Evidence presented showed a previous ruling in favor of maintaining existing channels.
Findings of Court:
The trial court’s decision favored the plaintiffs given insufficient evidence of the defendant's claims about existing channels. The appellate court affirmed these findings as correct.
Issues: The primary issues included the right to natural water flow, whether plaintiffs could obstruct this flow, and if lower courts misapprehended evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts confirmed that the plaintiffs had a right to halt alterations that could disrupt existing waterways, emphasizing judicial respect for concurrent factual findings. The law recognizes preventing any artificial blockage of natural water flow. (Para 3)
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunction granted against unauthorized alteration of water flow. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims of obstruction by plaintiffs disputed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. clear judicial affirmation of plaintiffs' rights to maintain natural waterways. (Para 7 , 8) |
J U D G M E N T
The 1st defendant in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has come up with this appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam in O.S No.394/2008 and also in A.S No.131/2010 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
O.S No.394/2008 was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant/1st defendant, restraining him from cutting open a new water channel through the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs apprehend that due to certain personal animosity by the defendants, a water channel could be cut open through his property, which never existed there. The plaintiffs also contended that, substantial destructions are likely to be caused to the plaint schedule property, if the defendants succeed in cutting open a drainage channel through the plaint schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit and contended that there is no need to construct a new drainage through the plaint schedule property, inasmuch as a well defined water channel was already in existence. The details of the same were clearly stated in the written statement. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Ext.B1 was marked and DW1 to DW5 were examined. Exts.C1 to C3 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner. The files relating to the proceedings initiated by the Devikulangara Panchayat were produced as Ext.X1 series. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found that the contention of the defendants that there existed a well defined water channel as per Ext.B1 can only be treated as unsubstantiated superficial opinion of the Village OfÏcer of the Puthuppally Village OfÏce and he disbelieved the contents of Ext.X1. Consequently, the suit was decreed, restraining the defendants from cutting open any new water channel through the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, A.S No.131/2010 was preferred before the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara, which was dismissed on 31.05.2012, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Against the said judgment, the 1st defendant has approached this Court with the present appeal.
3. On 14.03.2013, this Court while admitting the appeal, issued notice to the respondents on the following substantial questions of law:-
i. Is not the defendants entitled to claim natural right regarding the flow of water through the channel, if, the appellant is not entitled to get a prescriptive right regarding the same?
ii. Can the plaintiff cause obstruction to the free natural flow of water by creating hurdles?
iii. Did the courts below go wrong in appreciating the pleadings and evidence in the correct perspective?
iv. Is the lower appellate court justified in declining acceptance of additional evidence?
4. Heard Shri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri.S.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Shri.R.Rajasekharan, the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the documents produced in the appeal and also the report of the Village OfÏcer of Puthuppally as Ext.B1 and Ext.X1(b), which are the proceedings of the Village OfÏcer of Puthuppally, pointed out that the blockage in the water flow occurred mainly due to the illegal reclamation of the water channel by the plaintiffs. It is further stated that during the year 2022, Devikulangara Panchayat had issued a notice requiring the respondents/plaintiffs to remove the obstruction caused. The said proceedings are not taken to the logical conclusion, b
