The appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling regarding property rights and injunction based on evidentiary support for an existing irrigation channel.

Sathasivam ... Respondent / Plaintiff Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Mannargudi, dated 31.07.2012 made in A.S.No.27/2009 reversing the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi dated 23.12.2008 made in O.S.No.154/2006.

For Appellants : Mr.Arunbabu for Mr.R.Jawahar For Respondents : Mr.S.T.P.Koilmozhi

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Mannargudi, dated 31.07.2012 made in A.S.No.27/2009 reversing the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi dated 23.12.2008 made in O.S.No.154/2006.

2. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved over that the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

3. The facts pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiff in short The suit property was originally belonged to one Ponnusuamy Vanniyar by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.01.1954. After his lifetime an oral partition was effected between his legal heirs and the suit property was alloted to the plaintiff's father. There is an irrigation channel situated on the eastern side of the suit property which runs South-North. The defendants who are the neighbouring land owners have destroyed the same and annexed it with their lands. The existence of the irrigation channel has been mentioned in the plaintiff's grandfather's sale deed and the sale deed of the first defendant's father in the year 1914. The very same irrigation channel was the source for irrigation of the properties of the defendants situated on its east. The plaintiff is getting water from the channel by cutting across the western bund from the channel. In fact with regard to the bund an earlier suit has been filed in O.S.No.591/1993 by the plaintiff and the same was withdrawn on 08.04.1995. Since problem has arisen subsequently, an enquiry was made by the Tahsildar, Mannargudi and approval has been given to have a small channel in the suit property and to utilize the water from the irrigation channel by both the plaintiff and the defendants and to that effect an agreement was arrived at on 16.10.1997. Now the defendants claims that they have right over the exclusive channel created by the plaintiff to get water from the main channel to their lands. So the plaintiff has filed the suit for seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants in brief:

The plaintiff does not have any right over the channel and the bund and trees situated therein. The above features are enjoyed only by the defendants for a long time. The water from the irrigation channel is being used for lands in S.Nos.109, 213, 212, 211, 215, 216 and 124. Through the above lands in S.Nos.117, 116, 115 and 110 have also been irrigated. The plaintiff has not filed any documents to establish his title as claimed by him. Even though the channel might be situated in S.No.215/2, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same. By taking advantage of the interim injunction the plaintiff try to desecrate the channel and hence a suit in O.S.No.175/2006 has been filed. When the irrigation channel has already been there, there is no necessity to create any new channel