Skip to content


Narayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Venkata Chariar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad202
AppellantNarayana Reddi and ors.
RespondentVenkata Chariar
Cases ReferredRobinson v. Ayya Krishnama Chariyar
Excerpt:
easements act - act v of 1882, sections 7, 17--right to raise crest level of calingula of tank--submersion of lands thereby--right of owner of such lands to protect them from submergence. - .....on the authority of robinson v. ayya krishnama chariyar 7 m.h.c.r. 37. it is contended that the right claimed by the respondent is not one which can be recognized in law. in that case mr. justice hollo way was dealing with the question whether the defendants could be prohibited from draining their own land of the water falling upon it and naturally accumulating there, and he held that such a right could not be recognized. that is not the right directly claimed in the present case. here the respondent merely claims to be allowed to maintain his band at its usual height so as to give him the fall advantage of his tank. there is no question as to what the appellants may be entitled to do in order to get rid of water which is thrown back on to their land, and while deciding that the.....
Judgment:

1. We must take it as found that the respondent; has for a period of twenty years kept the calingula at the height at which it now is, and has not raised it. The effect has been to submerge at times the appellants' land. On the authority of Robinson v. Ayya Krishnama Chariyar 7 M.H.C.R. 37. it is contended that the right claimed by the respondent is not one which can be recognized in law. In that case Mr. Justice Hollo way was dealing with the question whether the defendants could be prohibited from draining their own land of the water falling upon it and naturally accumulating there, and he held that such a right could not be recognized. That is not the right directly claimed in the present case. Here the respondent merely claims to be allowed to maintain his band at its usual height so as to give him the fall advantage of his tank. There is no question as to what the appellants may be entitled to do in order to get rid of water which is thrown back on to their land, and while deciding that the respondent has not exceeded the right which he has proved, we do not decide that it is beyond the power of the applicants to take measures to save their land from being submerged. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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