BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 09 / 04 / 2025 Delivered on 09/ 07 /2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN S.A.No.1981 of 2001

1.Chinnammal (died)

2.Subbiah Gounder

3.Velusami : Appellants (A-3, who is already on record and recorded as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant vide order dated 21.08.2019 made in C.M.P.No.7313 of 2019 in S.A.No.1981 of 2001)

.vs.

1.Velusami

2.Balasubramanian

3.Chidambaranathan

4.Adaikkalamurthi

5.Senthilkumar : Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1999 made in A.S.No.70 of 1999, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the judgment and Decree dated 19.02.1999 made in O.S.No.246 of 1995, on the file of District Munsif, Manapparai, dated 19.02.1999.

For Appellants : Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarasan For M/s.Sarvabhuman Associates * * *

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.70 of 1999, by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.246 of 1995, on the file of District Munsif, Manapparai.

2. The short facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The first plaintiff was the owner of the disputed property since purchase in

1973, holding full possession, and she had the relevant legal documents (patta). In 1986, the first plaintiff agreed to sell the property to the second plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the son of the second plaintiff, and both the second and third plaintiffs have been using the property for agricultural purposes. As such, the defendants have no rights over the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants’ property is located to the south of their property. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants initially tried to purchase the property from the first plaintiff, but when the property was sold to the second plaintiff, the defendants attempted to buy it from him instead. When the second plaintiff refused their offer, the defendants allegedly began causing trouble by encroaching on the plaintiffs' property with the help of henchmen and damaging the field's bund. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking a permanent injunction.

3. The first defendant, representing the other defendants, filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' claims. While not disputing the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit property, the defendants state that the property originally belonged to one Kuppusamy Naidu, who had two sons, Ramaiya Naidu and Krishnaswamy Naidu. After the property was divided between the two sons, the plaintiffs purchased their portion from the descendants of Ramaiya Naidu, while the defendants purchased their portion from the descendants of Krishnaswamy Naidu.

4. The defendants further stated that the plaintiffs' property and the defendants' property, which is situated to the south of the plaintiffs' property, were originally separated by a common pathway. At the time of this division, water from the Boodakurichi Kulam (a water reservoir) to the north of the plaintiffs' property used to flow towards the west side through a "vaikkal vazhi" (a water channel). This water pathway had been continuously used by the defendants and their ancestors. After the defendants acquired the land to the south of the plaintiffs' property, they continued to have the right to use this water channel as a water supply path. According to the defendants, the water flowing through the western side of the plaintiffs' property towards the southern side does not affect the plaintiffs' land in any harmful way. They also claim that neither they nor their ancestors have ever caused any obstruction to this water flow, nor have they interfered with the plaintiffs' property to the north. Thus, the defendants assert that the "vaikkal vazhi" water channel on the plaintiffs' western side has always existed for their use, without