Judgment :- Third parties/Ayacutdars of Meyanur and Sannendal Eri, are the appellants. 2. Respondents (8) & (9) as the representatives of Sennendal and Mayanur Eri, have filed the suit against Respondents (1) to (7), for declaration that they are entitled for unobstructed, undiminished, mamool and customary supply of water from the Pambar River to their Kanmois, and for consequential relief of permanent injunction, from interfering in any manner, either by construction across the river Pambaru in Survey No.19 or otherwise, contending that the source of supply for their Kanmais is the rain water and surplus water from Pambaru River, which is enjoyed by them from time immemorial, which is also recorded in the revenue registers, that without any notice, the defendants 1 to 3, motivated by somebody, threatening to put up construction across the river Pambaru at Survey No.19, thereby they are making an attempt to obstruct the mamool and customary supply of water from Pambaru affecting their rights also, which they have earned, which should be protected by the grant of the above said relief. 3. Defendants (1) to (3) questioning the correctness of the averments in the plaint, have resisted the suit, contending that in order to provide irrigation facility, and to ensure supply of water at all times to the suit tanks and other tanks, with an aim of equitable supply of water to all the Ayacutdars, a proposal was meted out for construction of Anaicut, for which advertisements were made, calling for objections, then considering the objections, government have proposed to construct an Anaicut at Survey No.19, which will facilitate smooth equitable, accustomed, undiminished supply of water to all Ayacutdars of lower down reaches and therefore, the suit filed by two villages in order to restrain the right of the defendants is not maintainable, thereby praying for its dismissal. 4. Defendants 4 to 7 would contend that they are also entitled to equal share in the water flows from Pambaru, that the Government is taking steps to construct Anaicut for equitable distribution of water considering the welfare of the common people, which could not be questioned by the plaintiffs, representing two villages alone. 5. 4. Defendants 4 to 7 would contend that they are also entitled to equal share in the water flows from Pambaru, that the Government is taking steps to construct Anaicut for equitable distribution of water considering the welfare of the common people, which could not be questioned by the plaintiffs, representing two villages alone. 5. The trial Court framing two issues alone, tired the case examining the plaintiffs as P.Ws.1 & 2 as well as examining four other witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 4, in addition exhibiting four documents, on the side of the plaintiffs and two documents, on the side of the defendants. The Commissioner, who had visited the disputed Anaicut, appears to have filed a report and sketch, which are exhibited as Exs.C1 to C3. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai considering the customary right claimed by the plaintiffs, as well as the power and the right of the Government to regulate and distribute water equally to all the Ayacutdars, had come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction, restraining the Government from constructing an Anaicut is not proper and justifiable. Having concluded so, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit, in view of the specific prayers mentioned supra. But unfortunately, under the guise of rendering natural justice and assuming the power of moulding the relief, granted a decree in the nature of scheme, how the water from the Anaicut should be distributed and under what circumstances, the shutters in the door should be opened to let out waters, etc. 7. The affected defendants (4) to (7) by the grant of prayer, not prayed for by the plaintiffs, preferred an appeal before the District Court, Pudukottai in A.S.65/90. The Government i.e. defendants 1 to 3, who are bound to regulate the water and who are bound to obey the orders of the Court, have not questioned the findings, and in fact even after the filing of the appeal by the defendants 4 to 7, they have not filed any appeal or cross objections questioning the right of the trial Court, in granting a decree and thereby they have suffered the decree also. That alone could not be the reason to confirm the decree of the trial Court, since in this case, the affected parties have agitated the same, in the appeal. 8. That alone could not be the reason to confirm the decree of the trial Court, since in this case, the affected parties have agitated the same, in the appeal. 8. The plaintiffs, who were denied the right of declaration and permanent injunction, aggrieved by the same have not preferred any appeal or cross objections. The learned District Judge, Pudukottai, considering the plea, counter plea and the availability of the evidence, without going into details regarding the law on this point, confirmed the finding of the trial Court, regarding refusal of declaratory relief and injunction and came to the conclusion, that the trial Court is not entitled to frame a scheme, more or less, granting a decree in the absence of prayer. In this view of the matter, the first appellate Court set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and ordered to dismiss the suit without costs. 9. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants on record, are aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate Court. But unfortunately, the appellants, natives of Meyanur Village, claiming to be the affected parties, sought permission of this Court to prefer an appeal, which was granted by this Court on 20.7.1993 and thus, the second appeal came to be filed, by third parties. 10. As said above, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, in the representative capacity of the villagers, that should include these appellants also. Therefore, granting permission, for these people, to file second appeal seems to be not correct. However, having taken the case on file, I shall dispose of the same on merits, if substantial question of law, had arisen. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that the court is competent to mould the relief, even in the absence of specific prayer by the plaintiffs, in order to meet the ends of justice and in this way, the trial Court has granted a proper decree, directing the distribution of water, which was unnecessarily upset by the first appellate Court and therefore, the order of the trial Court deserves to be restored, in view of the fact, the first appellate Court has not properly appreciated the questions of law, viz., customary right of the plaintiffs were overlooked and the decision rendered in a previous case, regarding the principle in distribution of water from the public source, was not correctly appreciated. 12. 12. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Sivashanmugam would contend that the suit itself is not maintainable, since there is a bar under the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949, that the decree granted by the trial Court in a way restricts the power of the Government to take measures for increasing the capacity or efficiency of irrigation tanks, which is not available to the Civil Court and in this view, they would further urge, that the suit should be dismissed as barred and not maintainable, which was not properly considered by the courts below. 13. The learned counsel Mr. R. Vijayashankar appearing for respondents (8) & (9) in a way supports the claim of the appellants, since they will also be benefited, if the decree of the trial Court is restored, which they have obtained by filing the suit as aforementioned. 14. Neither, defendants 1 to 3 nor defendants 4 to 7 have taken any specific stand in their separate written statements, that the civil suit is not maintainable and the same is barred under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949. On the other hand, defendants 1 to 3, have stated that the suit as framed is not maintainable. It seems the bar of the suit before the Civil Court, for injunction, was not raised before the courts below and therefore, they had no occasion to consider whether the suit is barred under the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949. This is purely a question of law, for which generally no specific pleadings are necessary. A question of law can be allowed at any stage to be raised in order to decide even the maintainability of the suit, because of the fact, if the suit itself is not maintainable, then question of granting relief would not arise for consideration. In this view, this Court has allowed the parties to raise the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or the bar imposed under the Act to maintain the suit. 15. The Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949, empowered the State Government to increase the capacity and efficiency of irrigation tanks in the State of Tamil Nadu and for that purpose alone, this Act was enacted. 15. The Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949, empowered the State Government to increase the capacity and efficiency of irrigation tanks in the State of Tamil Nadu and for that purpose alone, this Act was enacted. Section 3 of the Act vests the power in favour of the Government, to take effective steps or measures for increasing the capacity of any tank, or efficiency of irrigation tanks, as the authorities deem fit and proper, wherever the irrigation tanks are situate. The legislators in their wisdom, probably apprehending dispute or problems from some corner, have provided protection also to the Government, from questioning their acts by filing a suit or application for injunction and in this view alone, Section 4 is enacted which reads, "No Court shall entertain any suit or application for the issue of any injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the Government by Section 3." 16. There is no proviso also in this clause giving any chance to the Court, to vest jurisdiction in itself under the guise of doing justice to the affected parties. The Section is unambiguous and clear cut, in its expression, that no Court shall entertain any suit or application for the issue of any injunction, restraining the Government from exercising the power conferred upon them under Section 3. This position is not challenged and could not be challenged also in a Civil Court. 17. The plaintiffs have filed the suit not only for declaration of their alleged mamool and customary right, but also consequentially prayed for injunction, against the Government. Prima facie, the suit itself is not maintainable and the trial court ought not to have taken the case on file. But, unfortunately, this point was not raised either by the Government or by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, before the trial Court, thereby allowing the suit to remain on the file of the trial Court, then proceeding with the trial, ending in a conclusion, which is impugned before me. When the suit itself is not maintainable under law, even as otherwise held by the courts below, the question of granting a scheme like decree is also not permissible, since the same is in a way restricts the power of the Government, to regulate the water supply, which will amount to injunction impliedly, indirectly, which is barred under Section 4 of the Act, as said supra. 18. This Court had an occasion to consider the effect of Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949 coupled with the Easements Act in State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the District Collector v. V.A. Abdul Rahim & another (1997-1-L.W.592). A division bench of this Court has ruled :- "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." and "Granting of injunction as prayed for and as ultimately allowed by the Courts in this case would have the effect of overriding and to certain extent even nullifying the undoubted power of the State to equally and equitably distribute natural resources of the community keeping in view the larger interest of the society, as the State has got to do." Thus holding, the judgments and decrees of the trial judge and appellate Judge in that case, have been set aside. 19. In State of Tamil Nadu S.C. Maharajan and another v. Sudalaipothi Nadar also, it is held that the suit by Ayacutdars, that they are entitled to certain quantified water and consequential permanent injunction is not maintainable, since suits of such nature are barred under Section 4. It is also held in the said ruling, though plea of bar of suit was not raised before the Courts below, the same could be entertained, in the second appeal, as question of waiver of jurisdiction will not arise at all. Basing reliance upon certain Supreme Court rulings, as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, quoted supra, it is held that the power of the Government to take any measure for increasing the efficiency of the tank could not be curtailed, by the Civil Court by the grant of injunction. No contra decision was brought to my notice, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. No contra decision was brought to my notice, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In view of the settled position of law and in view of the unambiguous terms of Section 4, I am of the firm view, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, to entertain a suit for injunction, in order to curtail the power of the Government. 20. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, that courts are empowered to mould the relief, depending upon the circumstances and granting a workable solution on the basis of customary right; would not arise for consideration in this case at all. The decree of the trial Court should be construed, as one curtailing the power of the Government, thereby in a way injuncting them to do certain things, though it is not said so in clear terms. The effect of the decree granted by the trial Court would amount to an injunction to do certain things, which is not permissible, under law and no power is vested in the civil court to do the same. If a scheme decree is to be passed, all the parties interested in the subject matter should be before the Court. As seen from the plaint, the plaintiffs are representing Sennendal and Meyanur Villages. Defendants 4 to 7, if at all could represent Sithakoor Ayucutdars. 21. The trial Court says that the first right is available to the suit Kanmoi, then the water should flow to the plaintiffs' tank, then the surplus water should flow to Sithakoor Kanmoi, Avithinkottai Kanmoi, Puduokkur Kanmoi, etc. Ayacutdars of those kanmois are not before the Court. Therefore, a workable, earthly, serving scheme decree could not be passed in the absence of all the persons interested. Under the above said circumstances, the inherent power available in the Courts, to mould the relief, to suit the occasion would not arise for consideration. But unfortunately, the trial Court assumed power and exceeded its jurisdiction; having came to the conclusion that the suit otherwise is not maintainable, which is not in accordance with law. Therefore, considering the above facts, though not the first appellate Court has said so elaborately, set aside the decree and judgment and to that extent it is acceptable. But unfortunately, the trial Court assumed power and exceeded its jurisdiction; having came to the conclusion that the suit otherwise is not maintainable, which is not in accordance with law. Therefore, considering the above facts, though not the first appellate Court has said so elaborately, set aside the decree and judgment and to that extent it is acceptable. To take contra view or to overcome the bar of jurisdiction, as pointed out supra, I find no case of worthy acceptance and the learned counsel for the appellants also failed to enlighten, how the third parties are entitled to claim the sustenance of right granted by the trial Court, which is in a way an injunction, against the Government, which is barred; for the foregoing reasons. 22. The trial Court without adverting the question of law, has committed an error in granting a decree and the same was set right by the first appellate Court, which could not be undone by allowing the second appeal. Therefore, I conclude, no question of law favouring the appellants, arises in this case and the questions of law involved in this case act against the appellants and in this view of the matter nothing survives and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.