IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON :30.01.2018

PRONOUNCED ON:12. 02.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

S.A. No.1183 of 2003

Kothandapani

...Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff

Vs

Subramaniam

.. Respondent/Appellant/Defendant

Prayer:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against

the judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2003 made in A.S.No.3 of

2003 on the file of Principal District Court, Nagapattinam

reversing the Judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 made in

O.S.No.375 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court,

Nagapattinam.

For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan

For Respondent : Ms.R.J.Shyamala

J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 21.04.2003 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2003 on the file

of the Principal District Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the

judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.375 of

1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the

trial court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit

property was enjoyed by the plaintiff from the days of his

ancestors on “paguthi” basis under V.S.Thiyagaraja Mudaliyar and

subsequently, the suit property was purchased by Ramnath Koyanga

from V.S.Thiyagaraja Mudaliyar on 29.03.1960 and the plaintiff

had purchased the suit property from Ramnath Koyanga during the

year 1962 and prior to his purchase, it is only the plaintiff

and his predecessors in interest, who had been in possession and

enjoyment of the suit property under “Paguthi” arrangement and

there is a small pond in the suit property and the plaintiff had

been utilizing the water from the pond to irrigate the vacant

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

portion of the suit property and the defendant had requested the

plaintiff to permit him to irrigate his lands by using the water

from the pond located in the suit property, which was not

accepted to by the plaintiff and resultantly, developing enmity,

the defendant attempted to interfere with the possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiff with reference to the suit property

and hence the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5.The case of the defendant in brief is that the suit is

not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the

suit property and other extent of large properties were owned by

V.S.Thiyagaraja Mudaliyar and accordingly, V.S.Thiyagaraja

Mudaliyar had alienated the properties to various persons and

accordingly the defendant's father Chidambaram acquired an

extent of 3 acres and 53 cents from V.S.Thiyagaraja Mudaliyar

on 31.01.1960 and in the said document, the extent of 50 cents

in survey number 449 is shown as the second item and the

defendant had purchased an extent of 50 cents situated in survey

number 449 lying to the east of 50 cents of land purchased by

his father from one Jaganathan on 20.01.1997 and accordingly,

the defendant has been residing in the property acquired by him

as above stated and the pond is situated in the property

belonging to the defendant and the land of the plaintiff is

situated to the south-west of the defendant's lands and the pond

is not located in the plaintiff's land and the plaintiff had not

utilized the water from the pond to irrigate his lands and

taking advantage of the ex-parte injunction order, the

plaintiff had put up fencing around the pond and the same could

be evidenced by the inspection of the properties of the parties

concerned by a Commission and the plaintiff's sale deed is

subsequent to the purchase of the property by the defendant's

father and the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had

requested to utilize the water from the pond to irrigate his

lands and that the same had been refused is false.