Skip to content


Rayappan and anr. Vs. Virabhadra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad530
AppellantRayappan and anr.
RespondentVirabhadra and ors.
Cases ReferredRamessur Persad Narain Sing v. Koonj Behari Pattuk I.L.R.
Excerpt:
water - easement--user--surplus water of tank--channel. - - it is not clear that the judge is right in saying that the channel c is an artificial channel, but however this may be, the lower courts both find that the plaintiffs have enjoyed the water flowing through this channel, whether the surplus water of the tank or the drainage of the fields already watered by the tank, from time beyond memory......koonj behari pattuk i.l.r. 4 cal. 633 establishes that a right of easement may be acquired in the surplus water of a tank flowing through a channel whether natural or artificial; and, when that ruling is applied to the circumstances of the present suit, it supports the case of the plaintiffs. it is not clear that the judge is right in saying that the channel c is an artificial channel, but however this may be, the lower courts both find that the plaintiffs have enjoyed the water flowing through this channel, whether the surplus water of the tank or the drainage of the fields already watered by the tank, from time beyond memory. the defendants then are not at liberty to close the channel either within or without the limits of- their own village; they have no right to intercept the water.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The case to which we are referred by the pleader for the defendants, Ramessur Persad Narain Sing v. Koonj Behari Pattuk I.L.R. 4 Cal. 633 establishes that a right of easement may be acquired in the surplus water of a tank flowing through a channel whether natural or artificial; and, when that ruling is applied to the circumstances of the present suit, it supports the case of the plaintiffs. It is not clear that the Judge is right in saying that the channel C is an artificial channel, but however this may be, the lower Courts both find that the plaintiffs have enjoyed the water flowing through this channel, whether the surplus water of the tank or the drainage of the fields already watered by the tank, from time beyond memory. The defendants then are not at liberty to close the channel either within or without the limits of- their own village; they have no right to intercept the water which has once entered, the defined channel for the purpose of carrying it off to their newly acquired lands in Ponnimanthurai below the lands of the plaintiffs. They may, of course, deal as they please with the drainage water of their Tamaraikulam fields before it enters a defined channel; they may use the water of the channel for those fields as it passes them; but they are not at liberty to intercept the drainage water any more than the surplus water of the tank when it has entered the defined channel C, to carry it by D to Ponnimanthurai.

2. The appeal of the defendants must be dismissed and the objections allowed; the decree of the District Court in so far as it reversed the decree of the Munsif being reversed and that of the Munsif affirmed with costs in all Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //