Chinnamma Varkey and Jacob Varghese v MV Kuriyan and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939** **SA.No. 33 of 1996 & CROSS OBJECTION ----------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25-11-1995 IN AS 62/1993 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 125/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA** ## **APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3:** **----------------------------------------** - **1.CHINNAMMA VARKEY, KANATHARA PUTHENPURAYIL, THEKKUM BHAGAOM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.** - **2.JACOB VARGHESE OF DO DO, REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER THOMAS VARGHESE OF KANATHARA PUTHENPURAYIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, WHO IS ALSO HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER UNDER POWER OF ATTORNEY NO.IV 426 OF 1993 OF THIRUVALLA SUB REGISTRY.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN** **RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 10/PLAINTIFFS 1, 3,4 AND L.RS OF 2ND DEFENDANT :** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. M.V.KURIAN OF MANALEL CHEMMARAPPALLIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.** **2. K.T.THOMAS OF DO DO** **3. M.V.ALEXANTHRAYOSE, MANALEL, CHEMMARAPPALLIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA.** **4. ELEYAMMA THOMAS, W/O DECEASED K.K.THOMAS, KULATHAKKAL HOUSE, THEKKUM BHAGAOM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.** **5. K.THOMAS S/O DO DO** **6. MOLLY THOMAS D/O DO DO** **7. BABY THOMAS S/O DO DO** **8. SALY THOMAS D/O DO DO** **9. REJI THOMAS S/O DO DO** **R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.RAJA SRI.P.R.VENKETESH** **THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2017 ALONG WITH SA. 127/1996, THE COURT ON 18.09.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rmm** ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ........................................... S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 ............................................ Dated this the 18[th] day of September, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** The defendants in O.S.No.125/1990 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla are the appellants in S.A.No.33/1996, while the plaintiffs in that case are the cross objectors. Whereas the plaintiff in O.S.No.278/1987 on the file of the same court is the appellant in S.A.No.127/1996. 2. O.S.No.278/1987 was filed by the appellant in S.A.No.127/1996 herein for permanent prohibitory injunction with following allegations: The plaint schedule property jointly belonged to the plaintiff and his wife Chinnamma Varkey as per Sale Deed Nos.708/1978 and 2807/1986 and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. As per document No.1645/1987, the plaintiff's son Jacob Varghese obtained right over the plaint schedule property. Since he was employed abroad, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for and on behalf of his son and he is managing the property on his behalf. The defendants were inimical towards the plaintiff and others. The 1[st] defendant is the owner of a low lying property situated on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The second defendant is his friend. He got S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 2 reliable information that the defendants were trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property and cut open a new water channel through the plaint schedule property to flow water through it. If they succeeded in their attempt, the cultivation and other improvements in the plaint schedule property would be lost. So according to the plaintiffs, the defendants had no right over the plaint schedule property or they had no right to cut open 'thodu' or to commit any act of waste in the plaint schedule property. So they filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants or their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and cut open 'thodu' through any portion of the plaint schedule property or altering the nature and lie of the property and committing any act of waste therein. 3. The defendants entered appearance and filed joint written statement contending that the suit was not maintainable and the suit was filed without any bona fides. The alleged right of the plaintiff and his son over the plaint schedule property had to be proved by him. According to the defendants, in between the property having an extent of 54 cents described as plaint schedule and its southern 4 cents of land, there existed a water channel in east west direction having an approximate width of 10 feet and depth of 6 feet for more than 75 years. It was in existence even in earlier days and during rainy and flooded seasons, water from the S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 3 defendants' properties and neighbouring properties flew through that 'thodu' upto 'Niragaththadam Padasekharam'. When the 'thodu' further reached west, there is a culvert on the AlumthuruthDuck farm road and this 'thodu' has been used by the defendants openly and continuously as of right and without any obstruction and their predecessor and others were also enjoying the right for last more than 75 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest and thereby they acquired an easement right to drain the rain water through the 'thodu'. This is known to the plaintiff and his predecessors as well. The plaintiff started reclaiming the property and filling the 'thodu' on 23.4.1987. The defendants and others filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulikeezhu police station and they directed the plaintiff not to fill up the thodu and remove the soil already put therein. Since the soil was not removed, with a view to get restoration of the thodu to its original position, the defendants and others filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla on 25.4.1987 with No.G.2467 and the same was pending. The petition was tried as MC.No.60/1987 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a conditional order directing restoration of the water channel was ordered and this order was passed on 27.8.1987. It is thereafter that the present suit had been filed and an injunction application was filed. S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 4 The suit was intended to test whether the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate could be indirectly circumvent and they were entitled to get restoration of the 'thodu' to its original position. No loss would be caused to the plaintiff on account of the same. Due to reclamation of the 'thodu', the wet land of the defendants and others became water logged during rainy season and paddy cultivation could not be possible and due to stagnation of water, the property became useless for cultivation. On account of the stagnation of water, possibility of health hazard was also apprehended. So according to defendants, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial court for consideration: i. Is the suit is maintainable? - ii. Whether the injunction prayed for is allowable? iii. Reliefs and costs. 5. The suit OS.No.125/1990 was filed by the respondents in S.A. No.33/96 for declaration of easement right and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein, who are the appellants in S.A.No.33/1996 for restoration of 'thodu' to the status quo anti and also for injunction restraining the appellants herein from further obstructing the flow of water through the 'thodu' with following allegations: S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 5 Plaint items 1 to 4 were wet lands and dry lands which belong to plaintiffs 1 to 4 respectively. Plaint items 5 and 6 belong to the defendants. There was a water channel in the plaint item Nos.5 and 6, which has been described as item No.7, through which during rainy season, water from the properties of the plaintiffs and other adjacent property owners used to flow. The said water channel was proceeding from east to west and through in between 54 cents of land and 4 cents of land mentioned as item No.5 and then in continuation of that, proceeding with the eastern boundary of plaint item No.6 towards south and then proceeds west and then south and then turn towards west and finally towards north. That 'thodu' was having a width of 10 feet and depth of 6 feet and having a length of 500 feet. It is being used for more than 75 years openly and peacefully without any obstruction as of right for draining the rain water during rainy season and thereby they acquired a right of easement through item No.7. The 1[st] defendant started filing up a portion of the 'thodu' on 23.4.1087 and the plaintiffs and others filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulikeezhu Police Station and they directed the first defendant not to reclaim the 'thodu' and also remove the soil already put therein. Since it was not removed, the 4[th] plaintiff and others filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 25.4.1987 praying for restoration of the 'thodu' to its original S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 6 position stating that it was a 'country thodu'. The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 27.8.1987 passed a conditional order in MC.No.60/1987 directing restoration of the 'thodu' to original position. Thereafter it was made over to the Executive Magistrate, Thiruvalla, where it was renumbered as MC.No.1/1987 and later the proceedings were dropped. The same was challenged by the 4[th] plaintiff and others by filing Crl.R.P.No.36/1988 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and the order of the Executive Magistrate was set aside and the revision was allowed and defendants were directed to restore the thodu to its original position. Against that order, the first defendant filed Crl.R.P.No.272/1989 before this Court. In the meantime, the first defendant filed O.S.No.278/1987 and the this Court allowed the revision by order dated 14.8.1989 in view of the pendency of the suit relegating the parties to decide their right in the civil court. 6. After the disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of plaintiffs' easement right over items No.7 of the plaint schedule property for free flow of water from plaint items Nos.1 to 4 and other adjacent properties during rainy season and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the obstruction already caused and in case it was not removed permitting the plaintiffs to remove the same through court and realise the cost from the defendants and also for S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 7 permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any further obstruction to plaint item No.7 by putting up structures or other constructions. They also contended that the plaintiffs have prosecuted their cause by filing a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in good faith and it was granted by the Sessions Court. But later set aside by the Hight Court relegating the parties to get their right resolved through civil proceedings and time takes to the proceedings which was initiated by the 1[st] defendant had to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. Defendants entered appearance and filed joint written statement contending that the suit was not maintainable and the same had to be stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure in view of pendency of O.S. No.278/87 filed by the 1[st] defendant in respect of same subject matter between the same parties. Even in that suit the case of 1[st] defendant was that the defendants in that suit were trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property and cut open a 'thodu' through that property and seeking injunction restraining them from doing the same. The defendants in that case had taken up the same contention that there was a water channel through the property, which was described as item No.7 for free flow of rain water from their property and that was being obstructed by the plaintiffs in that suit and the water channel which had been S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 8 filled up by the plaintiffs in that suit had to be restored to the original position. They denied the allegation of existence of water channel through item Nos.5 and 6 or any water channel described as item No.7. They contended that they tried to win over the police to get their wish accomplished to cut open a channel through the property. When that was not materialised, they moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate by filing M.C.No.60/87 for restoration of water channel and they obtained a preliminary order. Thereafter the same was vacated after perusing the Village Officer's report, on the basis of the evidence adduced but the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.R.P.No.36/88 set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and passed an order restoring the channel through the defendants' property. First defendant filed Crl.R.P No.272/89 before this court and this Court by order dated 14.8.1989 set aside the order of the Sessions court finding that the dispute between the parties pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the parties to get their right adjudicated in that proceedings. Further according to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs properties were remained idle and uncultivated for last few years and they had other convenient out let to drain out rain water. So plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief and they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 9 by the trial court for consideration:- 1. Is the suit hit by Sec.10 CPC ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have got the right of easement to drain accumulated water during rainy season through plaint item No.7 ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mandatory injunction to restore original possession of item No.7? 4. Is the prohibitory injunction allowable ? 5. Is the declaration prayed for allowable ? 6. Reliefs and costs 9. Joint trial was ordered and evidence was recorded as per order in I.A.No.59/91 in O.S.278/87 and evidence was recorded in O.S. No.125/90 treating that case as the leading case. PW1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. Dws 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exts.C, C1(a), C2 were also marked. 10. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court found that plaintiffs in O.S.125/90 had established right of easement through item No.7 of plaint schedule property for draining out rain water during rainy season, which was in existence, which is marked by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence adduced and further held that the period between 25.4.1987 till 14.8.1987 had to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the plaintiffs in O.S.125/90 were bona fide prosecuting their claim before a wrong forum in good faith S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 10 and also obtained a order from the Sessions Court under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and later that was set aside in revision by this Court relegating the parties to adjudicate their right in civil proceedings. So the suit is filed within time and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have got easement right over item No.7 'thodu' with measurements modified as having a width of 3 feet and depth of 4 feet and they are entitled to get a declaration as prayed for and also granted a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the 'thodu' having a width of 3 feet and depth of 4 feet along the alignment shown by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan within three months and also restrained the defendants by permanent prohibitory injunction by putting up any new building or other structure in that part of item No.7 with cost of the plaintiffs. Ext.C1(a) plan was appended to the decree. 11. On the basis of this finding in O.S. No.125/90 and decree in the suit, the court below dismissed O.S. No.278/87. Dissatisfied with the finding of the court below, the plaintiffs in that case filed A.S. No.62/93 and defendants in O.S. No.125/90 filed A.S.No.62/93 against the decree and judgment passed in that case. Dissatisfied with the decree reducing the width of the channel as 3 feet and depth as 4 feet, the plaintiffs in that case filed cross objection in A.S. No.62/1993 and both these appeals and cross objection were S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 11 disposed of by the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla by a common judgment confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court but modifying the width of the 'thodu' as 2 feet and depth as 4 feet at low lying area in thodu portion marked by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan. Dissatisfied with the same, the above second appeals were filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.278/87 and defendants in O.S.No.125/90. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the cross objection and also to the extent of reducing the width of the 'thodu' the plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/90 have filed cross objection in S.A.33/1996. 12. While admitting the appeal in S.A. No.33/96 this Court had accepted the substantial questions of law raised in the Appeal Memorandum which read as follows: I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the suit for declaration of easement by prescription is not barred under Section 15 of the Easement Act as the suit is filed beyond two years of the obstruction of an alleged easement right ? II. Are the courts below right and justified in holding that period of pendency of the proceedings under Section 123 of Code of Criminal Procedure could be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act treating the proceedings as civil proceedings? III. Whether the proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C is a civil proceedings as contemplated in Section 14 (1) of the Limitation Act ? IV. Whether the courts below were justified in granting a decree for right of easement right of prescription for a lesser quantum than one claimed by the plaintiffs in the case of right of easement by prescription? S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 12 V. Is the finding that the plaintiff have established right of easement and prescription legal and valid especially when courts held that the channel is only 3 x 4 feet an 3x 6 feet, when the claim is 10 x 6 feet. VI. Whether the lower appellate court was justified in varying the decree of the trial court especially when the court below dismissed the cross appeal filed by the plaintiffs. VII. Whether the appellate decree is legal and valid ? 13. While admitting S.A.No.127/96 this Court had accepted the substantial questions of law raised in the Appeal Memorandum as the substantial questions of law arise for consideration, which read as follows: I Whether the courts below are justified in refusing the decree for injunction ? II. Whether in the facts an circumstances of the case the suit O.S.No.125/1990 for declaration of easement of prescription is not barred under Section 15 of the Easement Act and Section 25(2) of the Limitation Act as the same was filed beyond two years of obstruction of the alleged easement right ? III. Are the courts below right in holding that the period of pendencey of the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. could be excluded under Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act treating the proceedings as Civil Proceedings ? IV. Whether the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is a civil proceedings as contemplated in Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act ? V. Is the finding that the defendants have established right of easement by prescription legal and valid especially when the courts held that the channel is only 3x4 feet and 3x6 feet when the claim is 10x 6 feet ? 14. Heard Sri.K.K.John learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the cases and Sri.P.R.Venkitesh learned counsel S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 13 appearing for the respondents in both the cases. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the commissioner's report will go to show that there existed no channel and it is only an imaginary channel shown to the commissioner. Further the evidence of Revenue Inspector who inspected the property earlier is not helpful to prove the existence of any 'thodu' as claimed by the respondents. Further the alleged obstruction was caused in the year 1987 and the suit O.S. No.125/90 was filed in the year 1990 beyond two years of obstruction caused to the alleged right and thereby the courts below were not justified in passing a decree under Section 15 of the Easements Act. Since the respondents have failed to prove the existence of the claim made by them the courts were not justified in giving relief in the modified form. Further it was brought out in evidence that there was a pipe provided by the Panchayath to drain out the water and thereby there is no necessity for using the plaint schedule property for that purpose. So according to the learned counsel, the lower court ought to have dismissed the O.S.125/90 and decreed O.S.278/87. The learned counsel also argued that the courts below were not justified in invoking under section 14 of the Limitation Act to save limitation. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when obstruction was caused and water was S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 14 stagnated on account of the obstruction of natural flow of water, they got two remedies and the respondents had opted for the remedy under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a summary and quick remedy under bona fide and in good faith that they could get relief immediately. But later, when the High court directed the parties to resolve their disputes in civil proceedings, they filed the present suit. So this will have to be treated as a period bona fide prosecuted in respect of the same relief in a wrong forum. Further, the evidence will go to show that they have proved the right and since the water channel was completely closed by filling up the same, the courts below were perfectly justified in providing a reasonable width and depth of water channel for draining of the rain water and there is nothing wrong in the order. He had also argued the lower court ought to have allowed the claim and should not have reduced the width of the water channel and he prayed for allowing the cross objection and dismissing the second appeals. 17. For convenience sake, the status of the parties as referred to in O.S. No.125/90 is referred to in these second appeals as well. Since both these appeals and cross objection arose out of the common judgment of both the trial court and the appellate court on the basis of the common evidence, this Court is disposing the appeals as well as cross objection also by a common judgment. S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 15 18. It is an admitted fact that plaint item Nos.1 to 4 in O.S. 125/90 belong to plaintiffs 1 to 4 in that suit. It is also an admitted fact that item No.5 and 6 in that suit belong to the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs in that case was that there was water channel described as item No.7 passing through item No.5 and on the side of item No.6 starting from the plaintiffs' property and reaches the culvert and then proceed to the Padasekharam. According to them, during raining season, rain water from their property used to flow through this channel and reaches the 'Padasekharam'. During 1987, the 1[st] defendant in that suit had filled up the 'thodu' and planted certain coconut saplings causing obstruction to the free flow of water. So they filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulikeezhu Police Station Though they intervened and directed the defendants not to obstruct the free flow of the water and restore water channel, since they did not take any action, the 4[th] plaintiff and others filed M.C. No.60/87 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla and the Sub Divisional Magistrate had passed a conditional order directing the defendant in that suit to remove the obstruction caused and also show cause why the conditional order should not be made absolute. It is thereafter, the 1[st] defendant had filed O.S. No. 278/87 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla for injunction suppressing these facts. It is also an admitted fact that the defendants in O.S.No.278/87 who includes 1[st] S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 16 plaintiff in this case entered appearance and filed written statement reiterating the claim of right to drain rain water through the water channel claimed by them and also narrated the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and prayed for dismissal of the suit. It is also in a way admitted that the matter was later made over to Executive Magistrate, Thiruvalla who dropped the proceedings. But in the revision filed by the 4[th] plaintiff and others, the Sessions Court reversed the finding of the Executive Magistrate and allowed the application and directed the defendants herein to remove the obstruction caused and restore the water channel. But on revision filed before this Court by first defendant, this Court set aside the same and directed the parties to sort out their remedies through civil proceedings which was pending at that time as O.S. No.278/87 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. Thereafter the plaintiffs in this case are filed O.S.No.125/90. 19. It is true in order to claim right of easement by prescription the suit will have to be filed within two years of obstruction being caused along with the 20 years of user of that right. If the suit was filed beyond two years, then the right under Section 15 of the Easement Act cannot be claimed. But in this case, immediately when the defendants have obstructed the free flow of water by filling up the disputed 'thodu', they moved the police and also filed petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 17 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which also deals with removal of obstruction caused to any water channel affecting free flow of water causing stagnation of water in any of the properties. So it was a quick and summary remedy available in respect of the same relief that prompted the plaintiff to file petition and it is also in a way admitted that though the Executive Magistrate had dropped the proceedings, the same was set aside by the Sessions Court and the relief was granted to the plaintiffs. Thereafter the defendants herein filed revision against that order before this Court, and this Court order dated 14.8.89 set aside the order and relegated the parties to resolve their right through civil proceedings as by the time O.S. No.278/87 filed by the 1[st] defendant was pending before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. So after the disposal of that revision that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. If the party has in good faith and bona fide prosecuting the mater for the same relief in a wrong forum, later if it was found that the remedy is to file a suit then the period spent by him in bona fide prosecuting the earlier proceedings can be excluded under Section 14(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act. This was so held in the decisions reported in _**Union of India and others v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and another** AIR 2004 SCC 3079_ and _**Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council, Tonk and Others** (1996) 6 SCC 100_ . So under such circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified in invoking S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 18 Section 14(1) & (2) of the Limitation Act and excluding the period namely, 25.4.1987 till 14.8.89 and if that period is excluded then the suit will be perfectly within time and the courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to get exclusion of that time and the suit is within limitation and so this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below on this aspect. 20. Then the next question is whether the respondents were able to prove the existence of item No.7 water channel. They have relied on Exts.A3, A7 to A11 to prove this fact and also relied on the evidence of Pws 1 to 4 and Exts.C1 and C1(a). Exts.C1 And C1(a) were taken after the suit O.S. No.125/90 was filed in the year 1993. Even according to the plaintiffs, in O.S No.125/90 the obstruction was caused on 23.04.1987 and the commissioner's report will go to show that there were certain coconut plants planted in that area which were about 5 to 6 years old. Though commissioner in Ext.C1 report found that there was no remnants of existence of any 'thodu' at the time of inspection, but he had inferred from the circumstances that there was a possibility of existence of such a 'thodu' from the other attending circumstances. 21. PW1 is the Revenue Inspector, who inspected the property on the basis of the complaint given regarding the obstruction caused to free flow of water on account of filling of S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 19 land by the defendants and filed Ext.A1 report and he had categorically stated that the filling was recently made and it can be seen from the terrain of the land that water was flowing through the property of the defendant and reaches the culvert and then reaches the Niragath Thadam Padasekharam. Though he was cross examined at length nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence on this aspect. He had also stated that the water used to reach a culvert in a Duck farm road and 1[st] defendant had partly reclaimed the 'thodu'. Further in Ext.A5 it was mentioned about the reclamation of the 'thodu' and filing of a complaint before the Pulikeezhu Police Station and police directed the appellants not to do any work there. It is mentioned in Ext.A1 report that property lying north of 4 cents described in item No.5 was formally lying low and water flew from it from the eastern properties flew westwards through the low lying land and passed through the culvert in the Duck farm road and and when the 2[nd] defendant purchased the said portion the 1[st] defendant raised up the low lying land and planted plants etc. and that caused obstruction to the free flow of water. It is also mentioned in Ext.A1 that there are no other alternate for drain out the rain water and the obstruction caused to the out flow of the water has to be removed. It is true that by Ext.B4 order, the Executive Magistrate dropped the proceedings and Sessions Court set aside Ext.B4 order and directed to restore the water channel. S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 20 But that was by Ext.A12 judgment of the High Court in Crl.R.P.No.272/1989 was set aside directing the parties to work out their remedies in the Civil Proceedings pending before the Civil Court and did not go into the question as to whether there existed a water channel or not. 22. It is also seen from the Ext.A1 that items No.5 was lying earlier in a lower level and when 2[nd] defendant purchased the adjacent 4 cents, it was reclaimed later by 1[st] defendant so as to make 4 cents part of plaint item No.5. Now plaint item No.5 comprises both 54 cents and 4 cents together. Plaintiffs produced Exts.A7 certified copy of decree in O.S. No.277/1097 M.E of Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, which according to PW2 is in respect of plaint item No.5. In Ext.A7, the property is stated lying on the north of 'thodu' and according to PW2 this 'thodu' is item No.7 'thodu'. Ext.A8 is the copy of the sale deed No.1429 of the year 1105. This document relates to Cheriya Parumala Purayidam and according to PW2 this property is lying on the south of item No.5 and east of item No.6. The property description in Ext.A8 will show that it is lying on the east of 'nattu thodu' and south of the 'thodu' and it is adjacent property of item No.7 'thodu' where it takes a deviation to the south from the earlier course from east to west as shown in Ext.C1(a) Plan. Ext.A9 is the certified copy of the partition deed No.2157 of 1113 of M.E. and it is also relating to Cheriya Parumala property S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 21 lying on the south of plaint item No.5. There also it is stated that it is lying on the south of 'thodu'. Ext.A10 is the sale deed No.3759/1951 and it relates to Cheriya parumala purayidam lying on the south of plaint item No.5 and east of plaint item No.6. There also it was mentioned that the property is lying on the south of 'thodu' and east of 'nattu thodu'. Ext.A11 is the mortgage deed, which according to PW2 is in respect of the property lying on the south of plaint item No.5 and it was executed in favour of 1[st] defendant and it was executed after the executor received back the documents from the 1[st] defendant after making the endorsement of the receipt of the money. There also it was mentioned that it was lying on the east and south of 'thodu'. So according to PW2 in all these documents there is 'thodu' on the side of item No.5 which according to him is item No.7 and no cross examination has been made on these aspect when PW2 was cross examined. Further, it was brought out in evidence, since it is a nattu thodu (country thodu) passing through the property of the private person it need not necessarily be shown in the revenue records and this was spoken to by PW1 as well. 23. Further the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 the independent witness also will go to show that there existed a 'thodu' in between the properties of 54 cents and 4 cents and that was later filled up by the 1[st] defendant and water is used to flow from the property of the S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 22 plaintiffs through that channel. Though they were cross examined at length, nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence on this aspect. Further the evidence of Dw1 also will go to show that they filled up the property between 54 cents and 4 cents, and 4 cents was lying on a lower level and this was done during 1987 and immediately a complaint was filed before the police and also before the Sub Divisional Magistrate by the plaintiff and others. He had also admitted that water used to flow from the neighbouring properties through this low lying area to the culvert on the road and then it reaches the Niragath Thadam Padasekharam. 24. The evidence of Dws 2 to 5 are also not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is no 'thodu' existed in the disputed plot. The commissioner was examined as DW5 also came to the conclusion that there existed a 'thodu' and on the basis of the material on record the reclaimed portion was done and saplings were planted with 3 or 5 years of his visit. This tallies with the period of reclamation claimed by the plaintiffs in O.S.125/90 as well. So under such circumstances, courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there existed a 'thodu' through the portion shown by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan in Orange shaded portion starting from the property of the plaintiffs and going through the property of the defendants up to the culvert and then to the Niragathu thadam Padasekharam. The Yellow S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 23 shaded portion in Ext.C1(a) is items 1 to 3 and pink shaded portion is item No.4 and Blue shaded portion is item Nos.5 and 6. The culvert was noted along Duck farm road. So it is clear from the evidence that the plaintiffs were able to establish that there existed a 'thodu' along the southern and western side of items Nos.5 and 6 and the rain water used to flow through that till 1987, till it was reclaimed by the defendants. The concurrent finding of the courts below on this aspect do not call for any interference. It is also established that this was used by the plaintiff and others to drain the rain water openly, peacefully, without of obstruction as of right as an easement, thereby they established that they acquired right of easement by prescription to use the same. 25. Then the question is whether the courts below were perfectly justified in reducing the width of the 'thodu' and granting a relief to that effect. The case of the plaintiffs was that it was having a width of 10 feet and depth of 6 feet and length of 500 feet. But it is come out in evidence it was having a width of 3 feet and depth of 4 or 6 feet depending upon the level of property. So under such circumstances, the trial court came to the conclusion that it is having width of 3 feet and depth of 4 feet in a portion of plaint item No.7 property identified by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan. But the appellate court though confirmed the finding of existence of thodu but modified measurement as the width of 2 feet and depth S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 24 of 4 feet in low lying portion of items Nos.5 and 6 in the raised portion of remaining item No.5 ending upto the western for flow of water alone was declared. 26. Even if the plaintiffs is not able to prove the exact width of the 'thodu', the court on the basis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there existed a 'thodu', then court can direct the restoration of the 'thodu' to a reasonable extent so as to restore the right of the plaintiffs to drain rainy water from their property through the channel to avoid damage being caused to their property. So merely because the trial court as well as the appellate court had reduced the width of the thodu does not mean that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief as claimed. The courts are entitled to mould the relief on the basis of the evidence, but it should not be more than what was claimed by the plaintiffs but lesser relief can be granted. So under such circumstances, there is no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that the courts below were not justified in granting relief of easement right for a stream lesser in measurement than claimed by the plaintiffs. Since there is no evidence regarding the exact width of the stream (thodu) or depth of the thodu, the courts below were justified in fixing the width and depth required for the purpose of free flow of water from the property of the plaintiffs to avoid damage to the property which they were enjoying for quite long S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 25 time as a natural right/easement right. So the cross objection also does not have any merit and the same is also liable to be dismissed. ## 27. In the decision reported in Gibbons v.Lenfesty and another AIR 1915 Privy council 165, it has been held: The natural right of a superior proprietor to call on the inferior proprietor to, receive the water flowing naturally from a higher to a lower level. Though merely a question of nomenclature, such a right is a natural right inherent in property and not an ordinary servitude or easement which under the Law of Guernsey differing from other systems can be constituted only by a grant. ## 28. In the decision reported in _**Kumara Pillai Velayudhan Pillai v.Rayappan Nadar Asirvadom Nada** AIR 1955 Travancore_ ## _Cochin 112_ , it has been held: The natural right of drainage to discharge surface water possessed by the upper heritor cannot be limited merely to the natural regulation of the water, according to the law of gravitation. It includes a right to collect in a body all the natural surface water which may be found on a tenement, and to discharge it down, without causing more injury than it would have caused by its natural unregulated flow. The lower owner has no cause for complaint if he receives without additional injury the upper water in a body instead of receiving it in its diffused natural state. ## 29. In the decision reported in _**Sheik Hussain Sahib v.**_ ## _**Pachipulusu Subbayya and Anr.** AIR 1926 Mad. 449_ , the Full Bench of the Madras High Court has held: The owners of adjoining lands at lower level would be prevented from improving their lands; but it was clearly not so as adjoining owner could improve his lands to any extent he pleases even to the extent of raising the level of his lands provided that he makes suitable S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 26 aarrangements for carrying off water from his negihbour's land. It is clear from this decision that the owner of the lower land is expected to receive the surface water or rain water from the upper land and he has no right to obstruct the free flow of the same. But at the same time, he can make alternate arrangements for flow of that water while improving his land to that extent he can be prevented from improving his lands. ## 30. In the decision reported in _**Sheogulam Singh an others**_ _**v.Rambahadur Singh and others** AIR 1938 Patna 73_ , it has been held: The owner of a plot of land on a higher level has, as a natural right and as an incident to the ownership of the plot, the right to discharge water upon an adjacent plot of land lying on the lower level. ## 31. In the decision reported in _**Kaosal Mohan Powar v. Kodu Dajiba Powar and Ors** . AIR 1946 Nagpur 75_ it has been held that: The rightful possessors of land on a higher level than the defendant's with a natural drainage in that direction have the right to discharge the surplus rain water which falls on their land on to the defendant's land, and the defendant is bound to accept this water. He cannot raise artificial barriers on his land which will cause the water to accumulate on another's property. He cannot do this even if it is necessary to protect his own property. Such a right can be acquired in special ways but that has to be pleaded and proved. ## 32. In the decision reported in _**Chadami Lal v. General Manager, Western Railway** AIR 1962 Allahabad 159_ , it has been S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 27 ## held; The natural right of an owner of the upper land in regard to water naturally rising or falling in his land is only a limited right mentioned in illustration (i) to S.7 of the Easements Act. He cannot claim a right to flow water in a defined channel like drain as a natural right; nor can he claim a right to discharge that water on the lower land which does not naturally arise on his land or fall upon it. No natural right to discharge through drain foul refuse water of factory situated on a upper land can therefore be claimed on a ground that the land on which the water is being discharged is situated on the lower level. ## 33. In the decision reported in _**Rachhay Panddey and others v.**_ ## _**Sheodhari Pandey and other** AIR 1963 Patna 76_ , it has been held: The natural right for the flow of the water from a higher ground to the lower one is confined to the flow of natural water generally through streams or drains and under some very special circumstances through artificial streams or drains. It can never extend to the discharge of artificial water brought upon the higher land by artificial means, specially to the discharge of all kinds of water from a house. Such a right cannot be claimed for the discharge of artificial water, such as, water used in a house for domestic purposes either through a defined channel like drain or otherwise, except by way of easement. Such a right in Bihar cannot be claimed under Section 26 of the Limitation Act, but can only be claimed on the principles embodied in the Easement Act although that Act is not applicable in terms to this State. ## 34. The same view has been reiterated in the decision reported in ## _1964 II The Andhra Weekly Reporter 39_ _**Akella Kasi Visweswara**_ ## _**Venkata Sastrulu v. Akella Satyanarayanamurthy and another.**_ 35 _**.**_ In the decision reported in _**Ganesh Panigrahi v. Jura Sahu**_ S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 28 ## _**and Others** AIR 1973 Orissa 232_ it has been held that: Where of the two adjacent fields one stands on a higher ground, nature itself has constituted a servitude on the inferior tenement. He is obliged to receive water flowing from the superior tenement. The inferior holder cannot obstruct the natural flow of water even if it is adverse to his property utility. ## 36. In the decision reported in _P_ _**atneedi Rudrayya v. Velugubantla Venkayya and Ors** . AIR 1961 SCC 1821, it has been held:_ Where a right is based upon the illustration (i) S.7 the owner of higher land can pass even flood water received by him on to the lower land, at any rate where the flood is a usual or a periodic occurrence in the locality. The water on a higher ground must by operation of the force of gravity flow on to lower ground. Where the owner of the lower ground by creating an embankment impedes the natural flow of water he would water. It makes little difference that the water happens to be not merely rain water but flood water provided the flood is of the kind to which higher land is subjected periodically. The cases pertaining to riparian lands must be distinguished from such cases. Further the only right which a riparian owner may have is to protect himself against extraordinary floods. But even then he would not be entitled to impede the flow of the stream along it natural course. 37. So it is clear from the above decisions that when the property owner of a higher level is enjoying the right of natural flow of surface or rain water through the property owner of lower level, then the lower level property owner is entitled to receive that and even if it is through regulated channel artificially created which has been used in that way for over a period of 20 years, such right can S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 29 be claimed by easement other than natural right as well. Even otherwise the water collected on the higher level property will have tendency to flow through the lower level due to gravitation and it may spread over the land of another. But if it is regulated through a proper channel and that is being used for a quite number of years without obstruction openly as a right then that will ripe into an easement. 38. Here the evidence of Pws 2 to 4 will go to show that there existed a 'thodu' through the portion shown by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan for more than 75 years. The owner of the upper land is using that right without any objection till 1987. When the 1[st] defendant tried to fill up that portion by reclaiming the same, that had been objected by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.125/90 by filing petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which ultimately ended in revision filed by the 1[st] defendant before this Court, which directed the parties to resolve the dispute in a Civil Suit pending before that Court. Defendants in O.S. No.278/87 filed by the 1[st] defendant in that case had raised this claim and subsequently after the disposal of the Crl.R.P. by this Court and then filed O.S. No.125/90 to establish their right. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the right has been obstructed and the plaintiffs have not come to court within 2 years and thereby this right to claim easement by prescription is lost especially when he is S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 30 agitating for this purpose through another forum, which is also dealing with such right in good faith and in bona fides and this Court has directed the parties to resolve their disputes through civil proceedings that prompted him to file the suit. So under such circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified in concurrently finding that plaintiffs have established right of easement to discharge rain water through the water channel shown by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan and the appellate court was perfectly justified in restricting the width of the 'thodu' or 'stream' to 2 feet and depth by 4 feet in a lower area alone so as to minimise the damage to the property of the lower servitude, namely, the property of the defendants that is in fact to the advantage of the defendants. So this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below on this aspect and the courts below were perfectly justified in granting the declaration regarding channel or thodu as modified by the 1[st] appellate court and also mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction against the defendants and that does not call for any interference. 39. Merely because there was an alternate pipe provided by the Panchayat is not sufficient to deny this right to the plaintiffs especially when the evidence of PW2 and the commissioner (PW5) will go to show that the pipe is not sufficient to drain the water S.A.No.33 of 1996 & Cross Objection & S.A.No.127 of 1996 31 which is collected in the plaintiffs' property during rainy season. Since O.S.No.125/90 was decreed, the courts below were perfectly justified in dismissing O.S.278/87 and that finding also do not call for any interference. So both the appeal as well as cross objection lack merit and the same are hereby dismissed. Considering the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear the respective cost in the appeals as well as in the cross objection. Sd/- **K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE** cl/rmm/15.09.2017 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge