Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Santhakumari, filed a suit seeking a declaration of customary easementary right to draw water for her land through a field bothie (Kanni) situated in Survey No. 829/1A, measuring 30 feet by 5 feet, running through the patta lands of the defendants. She also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any compound wall or interfering with her enjoyment of the suit property as a field bothie for irrigation. The plaintiff purchased her lands in Survey Nos. 829/3, 830, and 836 in 1990, which are part of the Ayacut of Mannargudi channel. The suit Kanni branches off from a branch of the Main Canal and has been in use for several decades. The defendants, who own adjacent lands, attempted to obstruct the plaintiff's use of the Kanni. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit without proper evidence of customary easement. However, upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the plaintiff had established long use and necessity of the Kanni for irrigation. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Headnote
A) Easement Law - Customary Easement - Section 15 of Easements Act, 1882 - The plaintiff claimed a customary easement right to draw water through a field bothie (Kanni) running through defendants' patta land for irrigation. The courts below decreed the suit based on evidence of long use and necessity. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact are not perverse and do not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. (Paras 1-18) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - The High Court reiterated that in a second appeal, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to show any substantial question of law. (Paras 15-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has established a customary easementary right to draw water through the suit property (field bothie) for irrigation of her lands, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court.
Law Points
- Customary easement
- Section 15 of Easements Act
- 1882
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- field bothie (Kanni)
- irrigation easement
