Madras High Court · 2025

S.A. No.1198 of 2019concurrent findings, wherein both the Courts have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.3. According to the plaintiff, his grandfather namely Marappa Gounder purchased land in old Survey Nos.236 and 228A, which was re-numbered as Re-survey No.283/6 in Oonjalur Village, Erode Taluk to the extent of 65 ¾ cents as per sale deed dated 17.12.1966. On the same day, the defendants' grandfather was also purchased a land to the extent of 61 ¾ cents in the same survey number. At the time of purchase, there was a common channel ad-measuring width of 1 ½ feet for irrigating both lands, described as A, B, C, D in the rough sketch. In the family partition the area falls within point A, B, C, D was allotted to the first defendant and assigned a separate Re-survey No.283/7. Subsequently, the plaintiff's grandfather purchased an additional 73 cents in Re-survey Nos.237, 238/A and 228A in the same Village by a sale deed dated 14.08.1968. The lands were also subsequently added within the Re-survey No.283/6. This additional 73 cents situated on the Northern side of the property purchased earlier on 17.12.1966. Thereafter, the ancestors extended the open channel from 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019the points C, D to E, F, and laid a pipeline to points G, H as shown in the rough sketch. They also extended the water channel through the area, marked as C, D, E, F, G in the plaint plan. Similarly to facilitate the irrigation to the land to the extent of 56¾ cents in Survey No.236, further pipeline was laid by the plaintiff's grandfather and shown in the Rough Plan as I, E, F, H. In the partition between plaintiff's grandfather Marappa Gounder, and two sons of Marappa Gounder and Northern and Western portions in Survey No.283/6 share of Marappa Gounder and father of plaintiff. Subsequently, in the year 2005, there was a family partition taken place between the family members and plaintiff, and lands allotted to plaintiff was having access to the Kalingarayan Canal, and also connected to a well in the same survey number. On 04.08.2010, the parties executed a written agreement affirming the plaintiff's common right to use the channel for water from the Kalingarayan Canal and agreeing to share maintenance costs equally for the pipelines. Thereafter, the defendants interfered with the plaintiff's right to take water through points C, D as well as the other portions, and further they damaged a cement pipe in the C, D area to the length of 2 feet. Against which, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit.4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement in the suit and contended that the plaintiff has no right to draw water through the channel in the A, B, C, D area as claimed. They further disputed the plaintiff's assertion that 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019lands of both parties were irrigated using this water channel. However, they have also admitted for execution of the agreement dated 04.08.2010 (Ex.A1). They also denied the very existence of the pipeline.5. The trial Court after considering the pleadings framed the following issues:“(1) mtrpaj; jug;gpdh;fis nrh;f;fhjjhy; ,e;j tHf;F ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>(2) thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth A ml;ltiz tha;f;fhy; bghUj;J tpsk;g[ifg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpatuh>(3) thjp tHf;Fiuapu; nfhhpa[s;sgo nkw;go A ml;ltiz tha;f;fhy; bghUj;J epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpatuh>(4) thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth B ml;ltiz igg;iyidg; bghUj;J tpsk;g[ifg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpatuh>(5) thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth B ml;ltiz epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpatuh>(6) thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth C ml;ltiz rpbkz;l; igg; iyidg; bghUj;J epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpatuh>(7) thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>“4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019The trial Court framed the following additional issues:“(1) thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;sgo jhth D ml;ltiz brhj;ijg; bghUj;J braYWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpatuh>“6. Before the Trial Court plaintiff side examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P9. On the side of defendants examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and marked Exhibits D1 to D6. Further, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed and the Advocate Commissioner also filed his report and plan and the same was marked as Court Exhibits C1 and C2.7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence placed on record, held that the plaintiff is entitled to irrigate his lands and agreed with the entire case of the plaintiff, and decreed the suit.8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. The Appellate Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and recorded that the Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the existence of the water channel, and thereby based on the same the rights of parties were determined.9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal. This Court, before admitting the second appeal ordered 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019notice to the respondents and heard arguments on the question of admission and to find any substantial question of law in this appeal.10. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the plaintiff has no right to irrigate his lands from the Kalingarayan Canal, as this was not the subject matter of any documents. The documents relied on by the parties pertain only to irrigation through the channel in the A, B, C, D area. Whereas, the plaintiff claims a right to irrigate by laying a pipeline through the C, D, T, E, F area, which was never agreed upon by the parties. There is no agreement permitting the plaintiff to extend irrigation to lands purchased after 1973. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of irrigation rights to the lands which was purchased later point of time. Rules governing irrigation of water from the Kalingarayan Canal, permit only flow from the designated source, not from other sources. He also contended that both Courts failed to properly appreciate the Advocate Commissioner's report and prays to set aside the same.11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the defendants categorically admitted the written agreement (Ex.A9) dated 04.08.2010, which entitles both parties to irrigate their lands using water not only through the A, B, C, D channel but also through the extended pipeline marked as 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019C, D, E, F, G. Both the Courts below categorically noted the physical features, and held that there was a water channel in existence and the same was in use for distribution of lands through A, B, C, D channel, hence prays to confirm the same.12. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.13. In the Advocate Commissioner report Ex.C1, which is prime exhibit to explain the physical features is extracted hereunder:“jhthr; brhj;J C';rY}hpypUe;J bfhsj;Jg;ghisak; bry;Yk; fpHnky; jhh; nuhl;ow;F bjd;g[wkhf mike;Js;sJ/ thjp g{kpapd; bjd;nkw;F K:iyapy; xU fpzW cs;sJ/ mjpy; Mapy; ,d;$pd; itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go Mapy; ,d;$pd; K:yk; ePh; ,iwj;J 2k; gpujpthjp g{kpapd; tlg[w vy;iyapy; fpHnkyhf cs;s epyj;jo igg;iyd; K:yk; nkw;nf cs;s thjp g{kpf;F ePh; gha;r;r epyj;jo igg;iyd; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ me;j igg;iyd; nkw;brhd;dthW 2tJ gpujpthjp g{kpf;F ,ilapy; fhiuahy; fl;lg;gl;l xU gz;izapy; fPH; gFjpapy; xU kil igg; cs;sJ/ me;j gz;izapd; nky; ,Uk;g[f;FHha; gjpj;J fhw;Wg;nghf;fpa[k;. me;j 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019gz;izapd; bjd;g[wk; fPH; gFjpapy; xU ,Uk;g[ kilg; igg; tha;f;fhy; kl;lj;jpw;F mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ me;j kilg; igg; tHpahf tha;f;fhy; jz;zPiu tpl;L thjpapd; fpHg[wk; cs;s g{kpf;F jz;zPh; gha;r;Rtjhf thjp tHf;fwp'h; Twpdhh;/ mijj; bjhlh;e;J bjd;g[wkhf xU fhiuj; bjhl;o cs;sJ/ me;j fhiuj; bjhl;oapypUe;J kPz;Lk; bjw;F vy;iyapy; cs;s fpHnky; tha;f;fhy; tiu xU tha;f;fhy; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;brhd;d fhiuj; bjhl;o Rkhh; 5 mo mfyKk; bjd;tly; 2 1-2 mo mfyk; fpHnky; 4 mo ePsKk; bfhz;l giHa fhiuj; bjhl;o MFk;/ epyj;jo igg;iyd; 2k; gpujpthjp g{kpf;F ,ilapy; cs;s fhiuahy; fl;lg;gl;l gz;izapypUe;J neh; nkw;nf thjp g{kpay; cs;s xU caukhd fhiuj; bjhl;oapy; brd;W nrh;fpwJ/ nkw;go fhiuj; bjhl;oapy; fpHg[wKk;. fPH;ghfj;jpYk;. nky;g[wKk; nky;ghfj;jpYk; ,uz;L kil igg;g[fs; jz;zPh; gha;r;r mikf;fg;gl;ls;sJ/ thjp Mapy; ,d;$pd; ,af;fp fhz;gpj;jnghJ nky;g[wk; cs;s gz;izapy; cs;s kil igg;gpw;F te;jJ/ (mJ jw;nghJ 4tJ gz;izahf fhz;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ)/ nkw;go Kjy; kilg; igg;gpy; te;j jz;zPiu milj;jnghJ neh; nkw;nf brd;W thjp g{kpapy; cs;s kil igg;gpy; jz;zPh; te;jJ/ (me;j 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019gz;iz jw;nghJ 5tJ gz;izahf fhz;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ)/ 1k; gpujpthjp g{kpf;F bjw;nf fhsp';fuhad; ft[h; tha;f;fhy; bry;fpwJ/ me;j tha;f;fhypypUe;J tlf;F nehf;fp xU jpwe;j btsp tha;f;fhy; tlf;F filrpapy; cs;s 2k; gpujpthjp g{kpapd; tlf;F vy;iyapy; cs;s fhiu gz;iz tiu bry;fpwJ/ me;j tha;f;fhypd; eLg;gFjpapy; cs;s (jw;nghJ 3tJ gz;iz vd;W fhz;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ) gz;izapy; nky;g[wj;jpy; xU rpbkz;l; igg; bjd;tlyhf gz;izia xl;o cile;J fhzg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;thW jhth ,lk; kw;Wk; mjidr; Rw;wpa[s;s ,aw;if mikg;g[ mike;Js;sJ“ vd Twpa[s;shh;/“14. This physical features noted by the Advocate Commissioner reveal the existence of a water channel that serves four watering points, including the disputed water channel. The report records that the channel originates between the well and lands on the Eastern side, branches to reach the Kalingarayan Canal, runs through the first and second defendant's land, and then flows to another bank. The Rough Sketch Ex.C2 shows that water from the well can irrigate the plaintiff's land through this channel, which similarly covers the entire area.9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 201915. Apart from the Advocate Commissioner's report, there is an agreement entered between the parties, to substantiate the case of the plaintiff to claim to right of irrigation to the lands and it reads as follows: “th/rh/M/9y; ek;kpy; 1.2 yf;fkpl;lth;fSf;F C';ry}h; fpuhkk;. hP/r/283-6 bek;ghpy; g{kp ghj;jpag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go hP/r/283-6 bek;ghpnyna ek;kpy; 1.2 yf;fkpl;lth;fSf;F brhe;jkhf ek;kpy; 2 yf;fkpl;ltUf;F ,d;DKs;s g{kpf;F (bjw;F). ek;kpy; 2 yf;fkpl;ltUf;F ,d;DKs;s g{kpf;Fk;. ,d;rpd; U:Kf;Fk; (nkw;F). ek;kpy; 1 yf;fkpl;ltUf;F ,d;dKs;s g{kpf;F (fpHf;F) ,jd; kj;jpapy; xU ghrdf; fpzW mike;Js;sJ/ nkw;go fpzw;iw ehk; ,UtUk; bghJtpy; mDgtpj;J tUfpnwhk;/ nkw;go fpzw;Wf;F 5 H.P. kpd; ,izg;ig ehk; ,UtUk; jdpj;jdpahf bgw;Wf;bfhs;s xUth; kw;bwhUtUf;F vt;tpj Ml;nrgida[kpy;iybad jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu thhpaj;jpw;F fojk; bfhLf;ft[k; xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;nshk;/ mt;thW ehk; jdpj;jdpahf kpd;,izg;g[ bgw;Wf;bfhs;s ekf;F chpika[z;L/ mt;thW bgWk; kpd; ,izg;g[ kpd;nkhl;lhiu mtuth; g{kpapy; mikj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ bghJ ,d;$pd; U:kpy; mikf;f TlhJ/ nkYk; nkw;go fpzw;Wf;F fpHg[wj;jpy; jw;nghJ 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019mike;Js;s ,';rpd; U:ik ehk; ,UtUk; bghJtpy; mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;nthkhft[k;/ nkw;go ,d;$pd; U:kpy; itf;fg;gl;Ls;s 6 H.P. Mapy; ,d;$pid ehk; ,UtUk; bghJtpy; gad;gLj;jpf;bfhs;nthkhft[k;/ nkw;go fpzW kw;Wk; Mapy; ,d;$pd;. kw;Wk; jw;nghJs;s bghJ igg;iydpy; guhkhpg;g[ Vw;gl;lhy; mjid ehk; ,UtUk; bghJtpy; gad;gLj;jpf;bfhs;nthkhft[k;/ nkw;go fpzW kw;Wk; Mapy; ,d;$pd;. kw;Wk; jw;nghJs;s bghJ igg;iydpy; guhkhpg;g[ Vw;gl;lhy; mjid ehk; ,UtUk; rhpghjpahf Vw;Wf;bfhs;nthkhft[k;/“16. Ex.A9 clinchingly shows that both parties have entered into an agreement entitling them to irrigate their lands not only from the well but also from the Kalingarayan Canal. This mutual agreement favours both parties, and the defendants' act of disputing the plaintiff's right is not sustainable. Both Courts have rightly considered the exhibits as well as Advocate Commissioner's report and held against the defendants. I am of the view that the concurrent findings rendered by both Courts have elaborately discussed the existence of irrigation rights as well as exercising their rights continuously from the date of forming the water channel (marked as A, B, C, D) and subsequent extension of 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019channel and laying pipelines. These findings based on evidence and same is proper. There is no substantial question of law raised in this appeal.17. In the result, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. The Judgment and Decree dated 01.08.2019 made in A.S.No.46 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.159 of 2012 dated 15.06.2017, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.09.2025ssiIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes/NoNeutral Citation Case : Yes/NoTo:1. The I Additional District Judge, Erode.2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 2019K. RAJASEKAR, J.ssiS.A. No.1198 of 201913/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No.1198 of 201912.09.202514/14