Skip to content


Appasami Aiyar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Chingleput and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.265
AppellantAppasami Aiyar
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Chingleput and ors.
Excerpt:
water-rate - inam village--inamdar entitled to one-fifth tank--extension of cultivation within his limit--no right to charge extra water-rate--act vii of 1865, section 1. - .....is entitled to. what use he chooses to make of his water seems to us to be immaterial. he may extend his wet cultivation or raise double crops on single crop lands provided he does not exceed his one-fifth share of water. it may be another question which it is not necessary for us to discuss whether, if the capacity of the tank be increased of the supply of water improved by a government work, the plaintiff is still entitled to claim one-fifth of the increased quantity of water. as he is now within his rights, we must allow the second appeal and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs throughout. the 1st defendant will be allowed two months' time to satisfy this decree.
Judgment:

1. We are unable to agree with the Court below. The inamdar is by engagement with Government entitled to one-fifth of the water of the tank. See column 61 of the Inam Register Exhibit B. Under the proviso to Section 1 of Act VII of 1865, the plaintiff is not liable to any water-cess if he is entitled to water under an engagement with Government. It is not shown that the plaintiff has taken more water than he is entitled to. What use he chooses to make of his water seems to us to be immaterial. He may extend his wet cultivation or raise double crops on single crop lands provided he does not exceed his one-fifth share of water. It may be another question which it is not necessary for us to discuss whether, if the capacity of the tank be increased of the supply of water improved by a Government work, the plaintiff is still entitled to claim one-fifth of the increased quantity of water. As he is now within his rights, we must allow the second appeal and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs throughout. The 1st defendant will be allowed two months' time to satisfy this decree.


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