Skip to content


Vadrevu Venkataratnam Garu Vs. Maharajah of Pittapur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad68; 175Ind.Cas.889
AppellantVadrevu Venkataratnam Garu
RespondentMaharajah of Pittapur and ors.
Cases ReferredLakshminarasu v. Secy. of State
Excerpt:
- - i am satisfied upon the circumstances of this case that the suit land is a riparian tenement.venkataramana rao, j.1. the question in this casa is whether the suit land is a riparian land abutting the river yeleru and whether the plaintiff is not entitled to levy water cases for the utilization of the water for the irrigation of the suit land. the question whether a particular land is a riparian tenement is always a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the case and upon several factors. i am satisfied upon the circumstances of this case that the suit land is a riparian tenement. the suit land is a pre-settlement in am within the geographical limits of the zamindari of pittapur. it is a single block of land about 11 acres in extent bordered by the stream yeleru part of the land is dry and part of the land is wet. there is a channel, which takes water from the yelerui.....
Judgment:

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question in this casa is whether the suit land is a riparian land abutting the river Yeleru and whether the plaintiff is not entitled to levy water cases for the utilization of the water for the irrigation of the suit land. The question whether a particular land is a riparian tenement is always a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the case and upon several factors. I am satisfied upon the circumstances of this case that the suit land is a riparian tenement. The suit land is a pre-settlement in am within the geographical limits of the Zamindari of Pittapur. It is a single block of land about 11 acres in extent bordered by the stream Yeleru part of the land is dry and part of the land is wet. There is a channel, which takes water from the Yelerui river to irrigate a portion of the defendants' lands. The origin of the channel is unknown, equally so the origin of the inam. Having regard to the geographical situation of this plot, one can fairly presume that the grant of this land carried' with it the right to utilise the water from the stream Yeleru and the fact that in an inam statement only 2 acres 87 cents is mentioned as wet is no criterion for restricting the user to the said extent. Reliance was placed by Mr. Raghava Rao on two English cases and on a passage in Coulson on 'Waters' and a decision of Sadasiva Ayyar J. in Lakshminarasu v. Secy. of State, A.I.R. 1919 Mad 1152 as regards the extent of a riparian estate. It will be seen from those cases themselves that the learned Judges did not attempt to give a precise definition of what the extent of a riparian estate is. As Lawrence J. pointed out in Attwood v. Llay Main Collieries, (1926) 1 Ch 444 it depends upon a number of circumstances and all that is required is reasonable proximity to the river bank. One test laid down in Farnham and referred to by Sadasiva Ayyar J. in Lakshminarasu v. Secy. of State, A.I.R. 1919 Mad 1152

Under ordinary circumstances the individual acquires title to such an amount of land only as he can reasonably care for and cultivate by his own efforts with such paid assistants as his business ability makes it profitable for him to employ.

2. There is no question in this case that the suit land forms part of a single plot and also is in a single ownership. Taking this in conjunction with its geographical situation and its physical configuration, one can fairly presume on the facts of this particular case that the suit land is a riparian tenement. I therefore reverse the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs. No orders are necessary on the civil revision petition. (Leave to appeal asked for is refused).


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