Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MELA AYYAVAYAL AYAKKATTARS versus SANNASI

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mela Ayyavayal Ayakkattars v. Sannasi - Second Appeal No.82 of 1993 [2003] RD-TN 1034 (28 November 2003)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 28/11/2003

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN

Second Appeal No.82 of 1993

Mela Ayyavayal Ayakkattars

rep. by

1. Palani Andi

2. Velu ... Appellants -Vs-

1. Sannasi

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu

rep. by the District Collector

Pudukottai. ... Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai dated 22.04.1990 and made in A.S.NO.80 of 1991 reversing the decree and Judgment of the Principal District Munsif, Pudukottai dated 31.07.1990 and made in O.S.No.903 of 1986.

For appellants : Mr.V.Srinivasan

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian for R1. No appearance for R2.

:ORDER



The suit has been filed by two Ayakkattars of Mela Ayyavayal. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree declaring that the defendants are not entitled to get water for irrigation to the suit land from Mela Ayyakulam and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from taking water from Mela Ayyakulam to their suit lands.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the first appellate Court reversed the finding. Against the order of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the suit Eri is intended only to irrigate the lands in Mela Ayyavayal Ayyakat and that as such the first respondent has no right to take water to his lands situate in Mellur Village?"

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. As seen from the prayer, the prayer is not for enforcing the right conferred on the plaintiffs. But, it is only to prohibit the defendant from getting the water. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are Ayyakattars of Eri. They can ask for protection of their right. If the Government decides to extend the benefit to other Ayyakkatars, no body has got any right including the existing Ayyakattars to prohibit such a benefit being conferred on new Ayyakattars. Therefore, the suit filed in the manner which is not maintainable. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that their rights are affected. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and the appellate Court also dismissed the suit.

4. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. It is made clear that the plaintiffs are entitled to rights of Ayyakattars. If any of their rights are infringed, they are always entitled to protect that right by appropriate proceedings.

5. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Index:yes

Internet:yes

ksr

To

1. The District Collector

Pudukottai.

2. The Subordinate Judge,

Pudukottai.

3. The District Munsif

Pudukottai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.