Second Appeal against dismissal of suit for permanent injunction regarding water usage from a common well. Court found appellant lacked evidence of rotation arrangements allowing storage of separate well water in common well, thus no substantial question of law.
Second Appeal dismissed; no order for costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
S.A.No.670 of 2008
and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Komarasamy Gounder ... Appellant/ Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 made in A.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007 made in O.S.No.333 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode.
For Appellant : Ms.V.Ponmani for Mr.V.Rajesh For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan
J U D G M E N T
The present Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in using the common pathway and pipeline drawing water from his own land.
Brief facts leading to the instant Appeal are as follows:-
has laid the pipeline from the well and he purchased the property in Old S.No.555 new S.No.238 and he is drawing water from his individual well and letting out in the common well and using it to his property, which has been objected by the defendants. Hence, the suit has been filed.
adjacent to the area with the well. According to him, there is sufficient water in the above well, he has obtained an electricity connection and installed 5 HP motors and is drawing water from the well and storing the same in the common well and using the same through pipeline underneath.
Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law and accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
asi
To 1. The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Erode.
+1cc to Mr.N.Manoharan , Advocate SR.No. 20654
S.A.No.670 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
A.SK(02/08/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appellant is entitled to draw water from his own well and store it in the common well without an arrangement for rotation.
Whether lack of rotation arrangement between co-owners permits blanket injunction against individual water usage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Komarasamy Gounder
Nallappa Gounder
Saravanan
Gopal
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
