Judgment :- (This appeal is preferred under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 8.7.1991 made in AS No.31 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1989 made in OS No.58 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the courts below, concurrently, are the appellants. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of ayacutdars of Mandalamanikkam Tank have filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from putting up any kind of construction, dam or anicut or bund or otherwise, across of river Gundar, either at Tiruchuli Anaikulam or anywhere on the grounds that Anaikulam Tank is not entitled to receive any water from Gundar, since Anaikulam Tank has its own immemorial source of supply from Kanal Odai, that if any dam is built up that will diminish and deprive the right enjoyed by the plaintiffs, causing irreparable loss and damage and that the Government is not entitled to make any diversion of water, detrimental to the interest of the local right of the plaintiffs, which they have acquired under common law, available to them inherently also, in addition to certain other grounds. 3. The suit was opposed by the defendants/respondents contending that they are not proposing to construct or put up any dam newly, whereas the proposal is to construct a bed dam near Thiruchuli to supply water to Anaikulam Tank by replacing the Mudkorambu without affecting the lower down riparian rights, including the right of the plaintiffs, if any, that by the proposed construction, it is not a new diversion of water, whereas it is only a recognition and affirmation of diversion, which was in force, in use from time immemorial, giving right to Anaikulam tank, the source of water from Gundar also, that the Government has got sovereign power in the matter regarding the source of distribution and supply of water, which cannot be questioned, challenging the same in the court of law and that in view of the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act, 1949, hereinafter called "Act", a civil court cannot grant an injunction either temporary or permanent restraining the Government from doing any act, which is aimed to improve the efficiency of the Irrigation Source of the area. 4. 4. On the above pleadings, framing necessary issues, the parties went on trial before the Sub Court, Ramnad at Madurai. To make out a case, as pleaded and if possible to prevent the defendants from putting up any dam, on behalf of the plaintiffs, 11 witnesses were examined, seeking support from 12 documents. Opposing the above evidence, to eclipse the same, the defendants have also marched 9 witnesses armed with 25 documents. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge in his elaborate detailed and well considered judgment has concluded that Anaikulam tank was enjoying the right to receive water from Gundar from time immemorial, which should be allowed to continue, that by the proposed dam, quantity of water received by Mandalamanickam Kanmai will not be diminished, that the sovereign power vested under the Government cannot be curtailed or challenged by filing this kind of suit for injunction, that too in view of the bar imposed under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, concluding on merits, deciding the right of the parties as well as considering the jurisdiction of the court also to issue injunction, which is barred, the suit came to be dismissed with cost on 17.7.1989, which was challenged by the plaintiffs in AS No.31 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ramnad at Madurai. 6. The learned Principal District Judge, scanning the evidence available on record and by going through the well reasoned judgment, unable to take a different view and unable to assail the same, since no material has been placed by the appellants, confirmed the decree and judgment, dismissing the appeal on 8.7.1991, which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. This court, while admitting the second appeal, had formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration in this second appeal: "(1)Whether the suit is barred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1949? (2)Whether River Kunder is an authorised source or accustomed source of supply to Anaikulam Tank and the mamool supply of the river could be impounded and diverted to the prejudice of the appellants as lower riparian owners?" 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. (2)Whether River Kunder is an authorised source or accustomed source of supply to Anaikulam Tank and the mamool supply of the river could be impounded and diverted to the prejudice of the appellants as lower riparian owners?" 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the provisions of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1949 has no application under the facts and circumstances of the case, which was not properly considered by the courts below and that in view of the admitted proposal to construct the dam in Gundar, certainly the rights so far enjoyed by the plaintiffs in getting water would be diminished, which was not properly considered by the courts below and that the Government has no Authority or power to divert the water to Anaikulam tank, which is having some other source of supply and Gundar was not the source of supply for the said tank, which were also not properly considered by the courts below, thereby erroneous decisions were rendered, which are liable to be set aside. In support of the above arguments, my attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act as well as the other materials. 10. In response to the above submission, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Government has every right under law, even to divert the water for the purpose of improving the irrigation system, storing water in the tank, which cannot be questioned by the ryots in view of the specific provision available under Section 4 of the Act and that as per the materials produced, which cannot be challenged, Anaikulam tank also was receiving water from Gundar as source of supply, which is now sought to be improved and in this view also, the claim of the plaintiffs are unsustainable. Thus, supporting the decisions of the courts below, it was urged that the appeal is not meritorious, deserves only dismissal with cost. 11. Mandalamanickam tank is the source of irrigation for the plaintiffs' village and for some other villages also. The source of supply to Mandalamanickam tank appears to be the Gundar river, which is not a perennial one, whereas it will have some flow of water, depending upon the mansoon for few months or so. 11. Mandalamanickam tank is the source of irrigation for the plaintiffs' village and for some other villages also. The source of supply to Mandalamanickam tank appears to be the Gundar river, which is not a perennial one, whereas it will have some flow of water, depending upon the mansoon for few months or so. The State of Tamil Nadu in order to improve the irrigation system, thereby to boost the agricultural economy, proposed to put up a dam at Thiruchuli in order to supply (more) water to Anaikulam Tank. At this stage, the plaintiffs as representatives of Ayacutdars of Mandalamanikkam tank in Ramnad District, have filed a suit as said above. The trial and the appeal ended against them and this is their last attempt, probably, to achieve aiming to set aside the dismissal of the suit. 12. By going through the judgment of the courts below, especially the well reasoned and unassailable judgment of the trial court, after hearing the arguments of either side, and by going through the materials also to some extent, I should say empathetically the appellants should meet the waterloo here also in view of the further settled position of law that the civil court cannot issue an order of injunction against the Government, when they were exercising the right conferred upon them being sovereign, expected to protect one and all under its umbrella. 13. The grievance of the appellants that when Anaikulam tank is having some other mamool source of supply of water and when that tank had no right to draw water as source of supply from Gundar, the Government has no right to divert the water by constructing a dam, that too detriment to the existing ayacutdars of Mandalamanikkam tank appears to be highly imaginary, jealousy, not based on any records, whereas the claim appears to be against the record, as recorded by the trial court, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The trial court, relying upon the evidence let in on behalf of the Government as well as considering the Commissioner's report, which indicated existing channel from Gundar to Anaikulam tank, that too, the people used to put up mudkorambu, i.e. earthen bund, to divert the water to Anaikulam tank, which is recorded in the revenue records also as source of supply to Anaikulam tank, has come to the conclusion in paragraph 9 of the judgment that Anaikulam Kanmai has every right from time immemorial, source of supply of water from Gundar, which cannot be prevented, though it had other source of supply of water also, as indicated in Ex.B.2. This finding, based on evidence, is not at all assailed before me, and therefore the grievance of the appellants that the Government is attempting to put up a new dam, thereby they want to divert the water, newly causing detriment to Mandalamanikkam ayacutdars is baseless, and therefore it deserves rejection by this court also, as did by the courts below, concurrently, justifiably, based on unerasable evidence. Thus, on facts even assuming that could be decided in the second appeal, the plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed in the appeal and in this view, the substantial question of law framed, i.e. second one is to be answered against the appellants. 14. The main thrust of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents was that the civil court has no jurisdiction to order permanent injunction against the Government, which is barred under Section 4 of the Act. In this context, we have to see once again the relief claimed in the plaint so as to find out whether the claim of the plaintiffs would attract Section 4 of the Act or not. The entire reading of the plaint with application of mind would indicate that they are not claiming right of irrigation alone from Mandalamanikkam tank, which is having source of supply from Gundar river against the Government or anybody, as if that right was questioned, negatived, irrespective of the fact that the right was conferred upon them, recognized by the Government from time immemorial based on custom or otherwise. On the other hand, the suit is aimed preventing the Government from constructing a dam across the river Gundar, as if they have no right, since that will affect the right of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the suit is aimed preventing the Government from constructing a dam across the river Gundar, as if they have no right, since that will affect the right of the plaintiffs. If it is shown that it is a new proposal to supply water to Anaikulam Tank through a new channel, then certainly it would affect the right so far enjoyed by the plaintiffs, even warranting interference of the Court to some extent to regulate the supply of water and certainly not preventing the Government from constructing the dam. 15. Here, both the courts have recorded a finding based on facts that people used to put up earthen dam or mud dam at the time of flow of water in order to have supply to Anaikulam tank through the existing channel. There is no proposal by the Government to put up or dug up any channel from the proposed anaicut to take water to Anaikulam tank. On the other hand, as per the evidence available on record, unchallenged also, there is a kalvai or channel from the point where the proposed constructions are aimed, taking water from Gundar river to Anaikulam tank. This would indicate that it is not a new diversion of water and if at all it must be only an improvement that is to take water from Gundar river through the existing channel, thereby to improve irrigation capacity of Anaikulam tank. Thus, settling facts in this case based on evidence, we have to see whether the Government could be restrained by an order of injunction from improving tank, since the proposed anaicut was only to improve the Anaikulam tank through a source of existing supply. 16. Section 3(1) of the Act confers upon the Government to improve the efficiency of tank, its capacity and the relevant Section reads, "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." As adverted above, by the proposed construction of dam, the paramount consideration of the Government is to raise the Anaikulam tank level, increase its capacity or efficiency, thereby bringing the act of the Government squarely within the above said section. Thus, concluding, it should be seen whether such act of the Government can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court by way of preventing, by an order of injunction. 17.Section 4 of the Act 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." thereby, showing the civi court is not competent to issue an injunction restraining the exercise of any power of the Government, which is aimed to improve the channel, in this case taking water through the supply on the channel to Anaikulam tank. The entire exercise by the appellants, by filing the suit was only to prevent the Government from putting up the dam, which is aimed to improve the tank as said in Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the plain reading of the above said section, coupled with the admitted position, as well as the established facts makes it crystal clear that the court cannot pass an order of injunction restraining the defendants, from putting up dam, which is the prayer in the plaint, which is well supported by the judicial precedent also. 18.The learned Government Advocate brought to my notice a decision of this Court in Sunda Thevar and others Vs. The Collector of Madurai and another ( 1984 MLJ 451 ), wherein this Court has also taken a view as early as in the year 1983 that the civil court's jurisdiction to grant injunction against the Government in this kind of case is barred under Section 3(c) and 4 of the Act, which should be affirmed by me also. 19.In a case in The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the District Collector, Madurai Vs. V.A.Abdul Karim and others ( 1997 (III) CTC 639 ), the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 4 of the Act as well the easementary right coupled with the said provisions of law. In its elaborate judgment, the Division Bench has observed that no injunction could be granted in view of Section 4 of the Act, thereby eclipsing 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. In its elaborate judgment, the Division Bench has observed that no injunction could be granted in view of Section 4 of the Act, thereby eclipsing 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. In this case, the Government realizing its duty and obligation in order to improve the local area, has rightly, justly, decided to put up a dam, which was sought to be unjustly interfered with, which was rightly prevented by the courts below, thereby requiring my seal of approval also, dismissing the second appeal. 20.In C.Arulsamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2003-3-LW-855), myself has taken a view that the suit for injunction against the Government in this kind of case is not maintainable. 21.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the questions of law involved, the unavoidable decision, is that the second appeal is devoid of merit, warranting its dismissal with cost, confirming the findings of both the courts below. 22.In the result, this second appeal is dismissed with cost throughout, confirming the decree and judgments of both the courts below.