Skip to content


R.G. Orr and ors. Vs. Meyyappa Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in24Ind.Cas.935
AppellantR.G. Orr and ors.
RespondentMeyyappa Chetty and ors.
Excerpt:
water - natural stream--surface drainage--accession--riparian owners, right of. - .....entitled to the uninterrupted flow of all such water into their tank. they claim further that the surplus water of the meippal tank, which flowed into the defendants' sathapulli tank before and which now flows from the tank directly into the channel e a f, must also be allowed to flow into their tank. they are not le owners of the bed of the channel : nor are they riparian proprietors. their claim is only one of easement. twenty years' user has not been proved. the plaintiffs get all the water they have been getting before this sudden accession of fresh supply from the meippal tank., there has been no pollution or diminution of their water supply nor is there any finding that there will result any injury to them, by either pollution diminution, by the continuance of the course adopted.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge finds that the bed of the suit channel E A F belong to the Narikottai village and that it was originally a natural channel formed in the Narikottai lands owing to the slope of the country for the drainage of the water falling on the adjoining fields. The plaintiffs have thus failed to prove that the bed of the channel belongs to them. For according to the facts found are they riparian proprietors. They have proved that for a long time all the drainage water from the lands on both sides which came to this channel has flowed into their tank in the Kollangudi village there is no doubt they are entitled to the uninterrupted flow of all such water into their tank. They claim further that the surplus water of the Meippal tank, which flowed into the defendants' Sathapulli tank before and which now flows from the tank directly into the channel E A F, must also be allowed to flow into their tank. They are not le owners of the bed of the channel : nor are they riparian proprietors. Their claim is only one of easement. Twenty years' user has not been proved. The plaintiffs get all the water they have been getting before this sudden accession of fresh supply from the Meippal tank., There has been no pollution or diminution of their water supply Nor is there any finding that there will result any injury to them, by either pollution diminution, by the continuance of the course adopted by the defendants of taking the water which formerly flowed into their tank through the Sathapulli channel, now through the new channel A B. According to the findings, the defendants are only taking the surplus water of the Meippal tank through a different water-course. There is nothing to show that the new water-course A B was not constructed at the same time the surplus water was let into the channel A. F. On these findings we think the judgment is right and the plaintiff's' suit must be dismissed. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.

2. In the circumstances of the case we direct each party to bear his own costs throughout. The costs already paid to the guardian appointed by the Court will not be refunded.


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