Judgment :- 1. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit. The facts leading to the Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: The plaintiffs purporting to represent an unregistered agriculturists association formed for the benefit of the ryots of Alivalam Village, have laid the suit for themselves and on behalf of the ryots of the village in a representative capacity against the defendants in their personal capacity as well as representing the ryots of Koilpathu Village for a declaration that the ryots of Alivalam village alone got exclusive rights to use and utilize the water flowing in a channel called Alivalam Channel, restraining the defendants and other ryots of Koilpathu Village through a permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the exclusive rights to use the water flowing in Alivalam Channel for irrigating the lands. The ryots of Alivalam have a right to use the entire volume of water flown by Alivalam Channel for irrigation purposes. The ryots of Koilpathu have no right to tap this water and they have no right to interfere with the course of the Alivalam Channel or reduce the quality or quantity of water let into Alivalam Channel there is no question of diminution in volume of water in Alivalam Channel at the instance of the Government or the Koilpathu ryots. This is by grant as well as the custom. The defendants have their own source of irrigation through Kidarankondan Channel and that channel is the registered source of irrigation for Koilpathu Village. The defendants recently interfered with the course of water in Alivalam Channel in an effort to illegally take water from Alivalam Channel for irrigation making the lands in Alivalam Channel starve for water and consequently affecting the yield and chances of more production of paddy. The plaintiffs complaints to the Revenue Authorities fell on deaf ears due to political and extra legal methods adopted by the defendants. The Revenue owes duty to supply water to the Alivalam ryots through Alivalam Channel, which should be necessary and sufficient for the accustomed requirements of ryotwari proprietors in Alivalam Village. The Government cannot divert water nor permit diversion of water by others to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. The Revenue owes duty to supply water to the Alivalam ryots through Alivalam Channel, which should be necessary and sufficient for the accustomed requirements of ryotwari proprietors in Alivalam Village. The Government cannot divert water nor permit diversion of water by others to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. The Revenue itself cannot interfere with the registered or accustomed mode of supply until they substituted another and equally efficient source and that even so third parties like the defendants have absolutely no right to cause loss to the plaintiffs through tapping of water in Alivalam Channel. The rights and obligations as between plaintiffs and Government rest on custo m and usage. Neither the Government nor the defendants should inflict insensible injury on ryotwari proprietors like plaintiffs. A rough plan has been annexed to the plaint showing the existence and course of the two channels and the fields. At point ‘A’ in the said plan arrangements are made by the Revenue to Koilpathu lands situate south and east of the channels. The suit has therefore been filed for the reliefs already mentioned. — 2. It has to be noticed now itself that the averments in the plaint themselves show that the government is a necessary and proper party and it has not been made a party in the proceedings. 3. The suit is resisted by the defendants contending inter alia as follows: The suit itself is disputing the very nature of the irrigation system maintained by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu not having been made a party to the suit, it has to be dismissed as bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Alivalam Village includes Koilpathu also. The common-water tank which supplies water for domestic use of Alivalam village is situate only at Koilpathu area there is no difference or distinction among the owners of lands of Koilpathu and Alivalam villages. The land owners of Koilpathu are irrigating their wetlands only through Alivalam Channel for the past several decades. About 10 years prior to the suit, the ryots of both the villages jointly represented to the Government for free and additional supply of water for their paddy fields and the Government had changed the structure of old bed dam in Odambokki River at Srinivasapuram where the Alivalam Channel departs. About 10 years prior to the suit, the ryots of both the villages jointly represented to the Government for free and additional supply of water for their paddy fields and the Government had changed the structure of old bed dam in Odambokki River at Srinivasapuram where the Alivalam Channel departs. As per the irrigation system in vogue the Alivalam channel had to irrigate about 500 acres of land and a culvert is also put up by the Government mentioning their facts at the junction of Odambokki River Bed Dam and the starting point of Alivalam Channel. The plaintiffs can have absolutely no grievance they are not entitled to the declaration prayed for there is no irrigation system existing in Kidarankondan Channel and in any event it is obsolete. The channel had been declared by the Public Works Department as unfit for irrigation long back and in fact mat channel had been blocked by several buildings in many places in its routes. Several encroachments were also made and thereby the system of channel had been completely disfigured. The plaintiffs cannot direct the defendants to use an irrigation system not in vogue. The claim of the plaintiffs for customary and accustomed flow of water is not maintainable in law. Any use of water system is subjected to change from time to time and it also depends upon the needs of the riparian owners. The plaint does not mention about the actual injury sustained by the plaintiffs they cannot have any injunction against the defendants. The suit is not maintainable. 4. It is seen from the pleadings that the necessary application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs and leave was granted to mem to sue and defend in a representative capacity and to sue the defendants in a representative capacity. 5. Pending suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the cause title, to the following effect: I. In the short cause title, delete the following: “for themselves and representing the ryots of Koilpathu Village” II. In the long cause title, delete the following: “for themselves and representing the ryots of Koilpathu Village” III. In the long cause title, delete the following: “for themselves and representing the ryots of Koilpathu Village” III. Delete the following in para X of the plaint and substitute the following for the deleted words: “X to be deleted: “Hence the plaintiffs are filing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction to protect their irrigation right.” Words to be inserted: Hence the plaintiffs are filing this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from drawing water from the Alivalam Irrigation Channel to irrigate their own wet lands situate on either side of the Alivalam Channel. IV. Para XI, delete the following: “and other ryots of Koilpathu Village” V. In para XII, instead of Section 27 (d), Section 27(c) is to be substituted. VI. In para XIII, declaratory relief asked for in para ‘A’ to be deleted. VII. In para (b) in the prayer, the word restraining, the words for permanent injunction to be added. In the same paragraph (b), the words “and other ryots of Koilpathu Village” to be deleted. VIII. In the details of valuation column: for the relief of permanent injunction the suit is valued at Rs. 400/- is to be substituted. 6. The affidavit in support of the application for amendment gives the reason for seeking an amendment as follows: “We have therefore been advised to suitably amend the plaint.” No further reason for amendment is given in the affidavit. 7. The application for amendment was resisted by the defendants inter alia contending as follows: By filing the amendment petition the plaintiffs want to alter the character of the suit itself. A reading of the plaint itself would show that the suit itself is one for declaration they claimed the rights as exclusive rights and the burden lies on them to do the same. Fearing that they cannot establish such a right, they have switched over to the consequential relief of permanent injunction alone. When the main relief itself goes, the consequential relief would also go automatically. When once an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, no subsequent event can revoke it or reopen it. Permission has already been granted by the Court permission cannot be revoked by way of amendment. When the main relief itself goes, the consequential relief would also go automatically. When once an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, no subsequent event can revoke it or reopen it. Permission has already been granted by the Court permission cannot be revoked by way of amendment. Sensing that the plaintiffs had no basis for the suit they have come up with the application attempting to change the character and scope of the suit. 8. The lower court after observing the formalities of public notice envisaged under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowed the application in part and in the process purported to treat the application as one under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. read with Order 23 Rule 1 granting the prayer for deleting the declaration portion, but refusing permission for amendment of the cause title. The lower court relied on Durga Prasad v. Radhey Shyam and others (AIR 1990 Rajasthan 57) in coming to the decision it did. In so far as the lower court refused amendment, the plaintiffs have come up with C.R.P. No. 2203/95. In so far as the lower court granted permission to the plaintiffs to delete the prayer for declaration, the defendants have filed C.R.P. No. 2716/95. 9. So far as the disallowed portion is concerned, Mr. P. Gopalan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted as follows: There is no dispute raised in the written statement by the defendants with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiffs right as ryots of Alivalam village and that Alivalam lands are fed by Alivalam Channel and on the basis of the defence raised by the defendants, the plaintiffs are entitled to amend the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. The decision relied on by the lower court for coming to this conclusion, viz. Durgd Prasad v. Radhey Shyam and others (AIR 1990 Rajasthan 57) has no application to the facts of the case there is no alteration or modification of the cause of action in the suit. By virtue of the amendment sought for in the plaint the defendants would be sued only in their individual capacity and not in a representative capacity. Durgd Prasad v. Radhey Shyam and others (AIR 1990 Rajasthan 57) has no application to the facts of the case there is no alteration or modification of the cause of action in the suit. By virtue of the amendment sought for in the plaint the defendants would be sued only in their individual capacity and not in a representative capacity. The learned Counsel in support of his submission relied on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Seth Nandaramdas Atmaram v. Zulika Bibi and others (AIR 1943 Madras 531 = 56 L.W. 583). That was a case where the plaintiff sued in his individual capacity. The suit was sought to be converted into a representative action under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bench opined that there was no addition of parties involved and therefore Section 22 of the Limitation Act was not attracted. The Bench observed as follows: “An amendment which does not seek to bring in a new party, but only varies the ground on which the relief was originally sought or asks for a different or additional relief without changing the cause of action, does not bring the case within Section 22 of the Limitation Act. Similarly, where a party is already on the record either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, an amendment which merely alters the capacity in which he has been impleaded to one of a different character does not involve an addition of parties so as to attract the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act therefore, an amendment of the plaint by which the suit is converted into a representative action under Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C, does not involve the addition of fresh parties so as to attract the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act.” 10. In my view, this decision will not help the plaintiffs/revision petitioners. In the present case, the representative character of the defendants is sought to be changed as one in individual capacity and the nature and char-acter of the suit are entirely changed. Leave was obtained to sue the defendants in a representative capacity and they are also taking part in me proceedings in such capacity. The plaintiffs cannot be allowed to change the character of the suit by converting it into a suit in individual capacity. Leave was obtained to sue the defendants in a representative capacity and they are also taking part in me proceedings in such capacity. The plaintiffs cannot be allowed to change the character of the suit by converting it into a suit in individual capacity. The defendants indeed will be greatly prejudiced if the character of the suit is allowed to be altered. In my view, when once a suit has been duly instituted under O. 1 R. 8 C.P.C., it cannot lose its representative character so far as the defendants are concerned by an amendment at the whim and fancy of the plaintiffs. The conclusion of the lower court on this point refusing amendment is therefore correct. The Civil Revision Petition C.R.P. No. 2203/95 is therefore to fail and it is dismissed. 11. So far as the other Civil Revision Petition is concerned, the order of the lower court permitting the plaintiffs to relinquish the relief of declaration is challenged. The ground of attack is that by giving up the relief the plaintiffs are attempting to maintain an incompetent suit. When the averments in the plaint themselves disclose that the government is a necessary party to the suit, the lower court clearly erred in granting permission to the plaintiffs to relinquish the relief regarding declaration. 12. I have already referred to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint and also paragraph 3 of the written statement. All the three paragraphs relate to the role played or to be played by the Government. The learned Counsel for the defendants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narayana Redely and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ( AIR 1965 SC 580 ). The prayer in the suit before the Supreme Court was for declaring that the defendant had no right in the circumstances set out in the plaint to alter or extend or add to the Chennur anicut over Venkatagiri River at Gollapalli in any manner whatsoever. Objection was raised as regards the maintainability of the suit on the basis of the bar provided under Section 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement Act (Mad. 19 of 1949) running to the following effect: “No court shall entertain any suit or application for the issue of an injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the government by Section 3”. 19 of 1949) running to the following effect: “No court shall entertain any suit or application for the issue of an injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the government by Section 3”. Section 3(11) runs as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the government shall have power to raise the full tank level of any tank or to take any other measures for increasing its capacity or efficiency, wherever it may be situated and Whether in a ryotwari, zamindari, inamdari or other area.” 13. The Supreme Court held that, “having regard to pleadings and the reliefs asked for, the suit was in reality a suit for restraining the State government from exercising its powers under Section 3, though framed in such a manner as to give the appearance of a suit for mere declaration. In our opinion, it would be a circumvention of Section 4 to entertain a suit of this nature. Under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, any person entitled to any right as to any property may institute a suit against a person denying such right, and the court may in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled; but no court shall make a declaration which would be futile, assuming that by reason of section 4 of the Act the appellants are prohibited by law from asking for an injunction. If, on the contrary, the State Government be bound by the declaration asked for (if granted by the Court), as is pleaded by the appellants, then the effect would be to restrain the State Government from exercising its powers under Section 3(1) of the Act. If that be the true nature of the reliefs asked for by the appellants, Section 4 would undoubtedly apply and the entertainment of the suit would be barred under that section. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State suggested an alternative submission for our consideration. He attempted to construe Section 4 in such a way as would, in his view, bar even a suit for declaration against the State Government. This construction introduced into the section a number of words which do not occur there and dissected the section in a way not warranted by the plain words used therein. He attempted to construe Section 4 in such a way as would, in his view, bar even a suit for declaration against the State Government. This construction introduced into the section a number of words which do not occur there and dissected the section in a way not warranted by the plain words used therein. We have come to the conclusion that the somewhat novel reconstruction of Section 4 attempted by learned Counsel for the respondent-State does not merit any further examination and we prefer to rest our decision as to the second point on the finding concurrently arrived at by the courts below.” 14. In State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Madurai v. V.A. Abdul Karim and another (1997 1 L.W. 592) a Bench of this Court referred to a number of decisions on the point and observed as follows: “The paramount and absolute rights of the State Government to regulate and distribute the supply of water for irrigation to one and all whose lands form part of the ayacut under an irrigational source cannot be whittled down or undermined by the civil Courts granting any blanket orders of injunction or stay or even any direction or declaration annulling a particular scheme or project devised in the larger and general interest and welfare of people and the society at large.” 15. Relying on these two decisions Mr. Hariharan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, in C.R.P. No. 2716/95 contends that the suit itself has to fail in the absence of the Government as a party and in view of the embargo provided by Section 4 of the Madras Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act. The learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the suit by this Court by exercising suo motu power of this Court. The learned Counsel also relied on the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted mat there is no cause of action disclosed and the suit has to fail. He also relied on several other decisions for rejecting the plaint. It is not necessary to refer to all those decisions. The Court cannot stand in the way when a plaintiff wants to relinquish any prayer, but, the implications and the consequences of such relinquishment the plaintiffs have to face and the proper forum for this, in my view, is the lower court. It is not necessary to refer to all those decisions. The Court cannot stand in the way when a plaintiff wants to relinquish any prayer, but, the implications and the consequences of such relinquishment the plaintiffs have to face and the proper forum for this, in my view, is the lower court. It is for the defendants to approach the lower court and seek the necessary relief including the relief of rejection of plaint I do not want to express any opinion on this. 16. So far as C.R.P. No. 2716/95 is concerned, as I have already observed, the giving up of the prayer by the plaintiffs has been permitted by the lower court and mere is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the C.R.P. No. 2716/95 is also dismissed there will, however, be no order as to costs. Consequently, the stay petition C.M.P. No. 12242/95 is also dismissed.