Judgment : S. Palanivelu, J. The Appellants are third and fourth defendants before the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai. The first and second plaintiffs are the ayacutdars of Nedungulam Kanmai. They are also representing all, the ryots of the said Nedungulam Kanmai. The first and second defendants are the Government officials. The appellants were impleaded in the plaint for themselves and also on behalf of the ayacutdars of Ganapathiyenthal Kanmai. For the sake of convenience, the litigative status of the parties is mentioned in this judgment as found in District Munsif Court proceedings. 2. The first and second plaintiffs along with 3 to 6 plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent in-junction against `the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from preventing the water obtained by them from the Ganapathiyenthal Kanmai by putting any obstacles the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai by its judgment in O.S. No. 259 of 1990 on 24.9.1994 dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any permanent injunction, as prayed for without costs. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal before the District Court, Sivagangai in A.S. No. 112 of 1994 and the said Court on 31.8.1995 allowed the appeal granting permanent injunction to the plaintiffs as prayed for, setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, without costs. Aggrieved over the judgment of the first appellate Court, the District Court, Sivagangai, the third and fourth defendants have come forward with this second appeal before this Court. 3. At the time of admission of this Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law to be decided in the second appeal. Question of Law: "Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, without formulating the points with regard to non joinder of parties and for cause of action, affecting the natural course of flow of water over the suit property?" 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the defendants filed a plan prepared by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai which is more helpful for this Court to find out of the locations of tanks and the channels and of the Survey numbers. The dispute is stated to be in Survey No. 187. All the above said properties are situated in Nedungulam village which is one among South Santhanoor Group of Villages in Manamadurai Taluk in Sivagangai District. The dispute is stated to be in Survey No. 187. All the above said properties are situated in Nedungulam village which is one among South Santhanoor Group of Villages in Manamadurai Taluk in Sivagangai District. This Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to file a report with reference to the particulars as to which are sources of water for the Vannanodai Kanmai and Ganapathiyenthal Kanmai. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that inspection was conducted by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai along with Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer and the report has been furnished. The informations found in the said report throw much light on the subject. It is the main grievance of the plaintiffs herein that the first and second defendants, Government officials are attempting to form a channel in Survey No. 187 by means of which the water from South Santhanoor Kanmai would reach Vannnanodi Periya Kanmai which is the main source of irrigation to their lands. In fact, the plaintiffs are getting water for their lands for irrigation from Nendungulam Kanmai and Vannanodi Kanmai which are on the north of survey number 187, whereas South Santhanur Kanmai is situated far east in survey number 187. It is to be noted that Ganapathiyenthal is situated on the south-east of Survey No. 187. 5. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader that northern portion of Survey No. 187 was assigned to various persons who are landless Adidravidars and now they are holding patta with reference to specific items of lands in Survey No. 187 and the plaintiffs have now come forward with the allegation of future action of the Government in. forming a channel in survey number 187 in which the pattadhars are in enjoyment. The individuals who got patta in the above said scheme are Alphonse, Savarimuthu, Arulanandu and Kulaindaisamy and they are holding Survey Nos. 187/1A, 187/1B, 187/1C and 187/1D respectively. These facts are available from `A register shown by the learned Additional Government Pleader. It is also stated that previously the water was coming through Survey No. 187 from South Santhanoor Kanmai to Ganapathiyenthal Kanmai which was a source of irrigation for the defendants and subsequently the said channel got obliterated by the assigness in Survey No. 187. 6. These facts are available from `A register shown by the learned Additional Government Pleader. It is also stated that previously the water was coming through Survey No. 187 from South Santhanoor Kanmai to Ganapathiyenthal Kanmai which was a source of irrigation for the defendants and subsequently the said channel got obliterated by the assigness in Survey No. 187. 6. The report submitted by the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, would show that the sources of irrigation for Vannondai Kanmai are the rain water and Thambiran Nedungulam excess water. The water sources for Ganapathiyendal Kanmai are Alangulam Nanja lands excess water and Santhanoor Kanmai excess water. The above said representation of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai is more categorical to state that Vannanodai Peria Kanmai has not at all been getting water from South Santhanoor Kanmai at any point of time. The particulars have reportedly been extracted from village `A register maintained by the revenue officials. Hence, there is no room to lay any suspicion over the statements in the re-port of Tahsildar. 7. The lower Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting and noting down the physical features of the properties involved in this case, who carried out the work and filed his report with the plan. But the said report and plan are not at all rendering any help to this Court, since the report is a reproduction of the versions which were stated before him by the parties at the time of inspection, virtually, it is a form of record on oral evidence. 8. When an Advocate Commissioner is appointed by the Court either to note down the physical features of the suit property or its measurements or the other connected characterstics, he is expected to execute the Warrant of Commission, as per the directions contained therein. He is not supposed to exceed the directions mentioned in the Warrant of Commission. 9. The object of local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to obtain evidence, which from its peculiar, nature, can be had from the spot itself. Such evidence enables the Court to properly and correctly understand and assess the evidence on record. It clarifies or explains any point, which is left doubtful en the evidence on record. 10. Such evidence enables the Court to properly and correctly understand and assess the evidence on record. It clarifies or explains any point, which is left doubtful en the evidence on record. 10. It is to be borne in mind that the Court delegates its powers to the Commissioner to inspect the property and to secure the available materials as per the instructions in the Warrant of Commission, for better adjudication of the case. Those materials might be inevitable to elicit any point, which could be doubtful on the evidence produced before the Court. 11. The duty of Commissioner is not to collect the evidence, which is in the nature of oral testimony of the parties in the place of commission, but to graphically elucidate the matter, which is local in character. If the Commissioner exceeds his limit of inspecting the property by gathering the evidence with reference to the physical features, measurements etc. and proceeds to make his report as to the recording of oral statements made by the parties and other persons, it would travesty the object of issue of commission, which would ultimately shatter the very purpose of the commission. 12. It is a simple logic that when a Commissioner records oral statements of the parties and others available in the site of inspection, the Court could not at all place any reliance upon the said statements, because, firstly, the statements are not brought to record on oath and, nextly, the other party would not have a right to cross-examine. Hence, in the absence of any specific direction for recording of oral evidence in the Warrant of Commission, the Commissioner shall not record the statements adduced by the persons available in the place of inspection. Further, an adjudication on a material issue has to be undertaken only by the Court and the said power is not at all delegated to the Commissioner, while he is directed to make local inspection alone. Though it may be stated that a statement is given by a party to the Commissioner at the time of inspection, which had not received any objection from the other side, still, it would suffer from infirmity, as it was not taken on oath. So, the non-objection on the part of other side could not be stated that it was a co-operation from him. 13. So, the non-objection on the part of other side could not be stated that it was a co-operation from him. 13. As for the contentions of the learned counsel for the third and fourth defendants who are the appellants before this Court, from the very fact that the plaintiffs and their the predecessors in title have been obtaining water from Vannanodai Periya Kanmai and Thambiran Kanmai alone and no point of time they obtained water from South Santhanoor Kanmai, which is supported by the records available with the revenue department, they are not entitled for injunction a prayed for in this case. 14. The learned Additional Government Pleader also contends that if there was any proposal for making any channel in Survey No. 187 for passing the water from South Sathanoor Kanmai to Ganapathiyenthal Kanmai, it is the prerogative of the Government and neither the plaintiffs nor anybody else is the entitled to object to it, since the said right of the Government is statutorily protected. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants in this juncture would draw attention of this Court that even though the plaintiffs have pleaded easement right to get the water from South Santhanoor Kanmai, in fact, they could not make any claim against the Government, since the Governments rights could not be curtailed by any private individual and there is a statutory bar in the Indian Easement Act, 1882. Section 2(a) of the Act reads as follows: "Any right of the Government to regulate the collection, retention and distribution of the water of rivers and streams flowing in natural channels, and of natural lakes and ponds, or of the water flowing, collected, retained or distributed in or by any channels or other work constructed at the public expense." 16. He also garnered support from the pro-visions contained in the Tamil Nadu irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act (Tamil Nadu Act No. 19 of 1949) in which Section 4 puts a bar for instituting suits for injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the Government by section 3. 17. He also garnered support from the pro-visions contained in the Tamil Nadu irrigation Tanks (Improvement) Act (Tamil Nadu Act No. 19 of 1949) in which Section 4 puts a bar for instituting suits for injunction to restrain the exercise of any powers conferred on the Government by section 3. 17. Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act read as follows: `Power to take measures for increasing the capacity or efficiency of irrigation tanks: 3(1) Not withstanding 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 of efficiency, wherever it may be situated and whether in a ryotwari, zamindari, inamdari or other area. (2)The owner of a tank not belonging to the Government shall not be required to bear any portion of the cost of carrying out any measures in respect of the tank under sub-section (1). (3)Where, in pursuance of sub-section (1), any measures are carried out, in respect of a tank, the cost of carrying them out or such portion of the cost as the Government may specify, may be recovered by the District Collector from the owners of the lands and other properties benefited by the work in such proportions, and in such manner, as may be prescribed. 4. 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. 18. From the above statutory provisions, it is very clear that no suit for injunction would lie before any civil Court curtailing or restraining the power of the Government in the matter of irrigation and the Government has got every right to regulate the water available to the ryots in the particular locality. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants also drew attention of this Court to a decision of this Court which have been rendered on the strength of Section 4 of the above said Act. The operative portion of the said decision is as under: a) In State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Madurai Vs. V.A. Abdul Karim and Another (1997) 2 MLJ 261 is held that in para 9 as follows: 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Learned counsel appearing on either side. In Lachuma Goundan Vs. The operative portion of the said decision is as under: a) In State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Madurai Vs. V.A. Abdul Karim and Another (1997) 2 MLJ 261 is held that in para 9 as follows: 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Learned counsel appearing on either side. In Lachuma Goundan Vs. Pandiyappan (1950) 2 MLJ 658 , VISWANANTHA SATRI, J. held that the obligation of the Government is to supply water necessary and sufficient for the accustomed requirements of the ryotwari proprietor so long as such supply is not adversely affected by natural causes such as deficiency of rainfall or scarcity of water in the rivers from which the supply channels take off. It was also held therein that in other cases, the interference by the Government with the existing rights of irrigation from artificial channels constructed by Government is not an actionable wrong and the ryotwari proprietor is not entitled to insist that the entire volume of water which had been flowing through the artificial channel should, for all times, be allowed to run along the channel without diminution or diversion by the Government. We are therefore, of the view that despite the rights of the ryot to receive from the Government supply of water necessary for irrigation of his registered wet lands, as an incident to the Ryotwari tenure, the prerogative right of the Government to regulate the same in the larger interest of the society is equally beyond challenge." a) In C. Arulaamy and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Pudukottai and Others, (2003) 3 MLJ 618 : 2003 (3) LW 855 it is held in para 17 as follows: "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. 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. 20. This Court has taken a consistent view on the basis of Section 4 of the above said Act and held that the right of the Government in exercising its power under the said legislation could not be curtailed. 21. In view of the above said proposition of law and in the unambiguous terms of Section 4, it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Civil Court is bereft of the jurisdiction to grant any injunction, preventing the rights of the Government to regulate the water supply to the agricultural lands. 22. The substantial question of law has been framed by this Court to the effect that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties and also for absence of cause of action. With regard to non joinder of necessary parties, it is contended that the assignees in survey number 187 as aforementioned are the necessary parties before this Court and the non joinder of parties is very much fatal to the claim of the plaintiffs. If the above said persons are proper parties, this Court may hold that the suit will not suffer on that score. But, if those individuals are the necessary parties as per law, the plaintiffs should go out of the Court. Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "Order 1 Rule 9. If the above said persons are proper parties, this Court may hold that the suit will not suffer on that score. But, if those individuals are the necessary parties as per law, the plaintiffs should go out of the Court. Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "Order 1 Rule 9. Misjoinder and non-joinder: No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: [Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party]" 23. If the Court finds that proper parties are not on the record, it may grant some more opportunity to the plaintiffs to implead them subsequently and proceed further with the trial. But, if any party, who is very much necessary for adjudication and to finally decide the rights of the parties, is not impleaded at the time of the suit, there is no option for the Courts except to reject claim of the plaintiffs. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, the assignees in Survey No. 187, found in `A Register of the revenue department, are very much essential for the suit, since the plaintiffs are alleging that the Government may lay a channel in the said survey number. Hence, they are necessary parties to the suit and, in their absence, the claim of the plaintiffs could not be finally adjudicated. Since they have not been impleaded in this case, it is to be observed that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 24. As far as the factual aspects are concerned, both the Courts below have discussed the matter and it is not necessary for this Court to go deep into the pleadings and the oral evidence, which have already been subjected to a thorough scrutiny by the Courts below. 25. In view of the settled legal position by this Court, it is held herein that the plaintiffs are non-suited for the relief claimed and they are not entitled to irrigate their lands from South Sathanoor Kanmai and that they are entirely alien to the source of water from South Santhanoor Kanmai. 26. 25. In view of the settled legal position by this Court, it is held herein that the plaintiffs are non-suited for the relief claimed and they are not entitled to irrigate their lands from South Sathanoor Kanmai and that they are entirely alien to the source of water from South Santhanoor Kanmai. 26. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in this suit. The substantial question of law is answered as stated above. 27. In the result, this second appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, in A.S. No. 112 of 1994 and restoring the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Manamadurai, in O.S. No. 259 of 1990. No costs. Second appeal allowed.