Judgment :- The plaintiff, who proved to be successful before the trial court, but became unsuccessful before the lower appellate court, has come forward with the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in A.S.No.29/2007 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.289/2004. 2. The appellant is the owner of eastern most property shown in the plaint plan and the property comprised in Survey No.1086, which lies on the west of one Narayanasamys property. In between the eastern most property belonging to the plaintiff and Narayanasamys property, one Easwaran has got a field. The sluice meant for getting Parambikulam-Azhiyar water for irrigation purpose is found near the eastern property of the plaintiff. From there a channel runs through the land of Easwaran on the southern and western sides, which then proceeds towards west across the land of Narayanasamy to reach survey No.1086 belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. Expressing some difficulty in drawing water through the above said plan marked channel and contending that, if the appellant/plaintiff was allowed to form a new channel north-south across his eastern property and take it along the east-west ittery to reach the western property, namely Survey No.1086, would prevent the seepage of water flowing into the neighbouring field, the appellant/plaintiff approached the respondents/defendants, who are the District Collector, Engineers of Azhiyar Irrigation Division, Tahsildar of Kangeyam Taluk and the President of Sivanmalai Panchayat, seeking permission to lay such a new channel for drawing water to the plaintiffs field in Survey No.1086. As the permission sought for was not granted and no order granting such permission was passed, the appellant/plaintiff approached the trial court by filing O.S.No.289/2004 for a declaration that he had got a right to form a channel as claimed by him and draw water to his western field comprised in Survey No.1086 through such channel and a mandatory injunction directing the respondents herein to accord such permission. The trial court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought for and thus decreed the suit. On appeal preferred by the respondents herein before the lower appellate court, the trial courts judgment was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Hence the appellant has come forward with the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. 3. On appeal preferred by the respondents herein before the lower appellate court, the trial courts judgment was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Hence the appellant has come forward with the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. 3. The submissions made by Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mrs.Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Special Government Pleader were heard. 4. The lay of the property in which the sluice has been provided and the property to which the appellant/plaintiff gets irrigation from the sluice, is clearly shown in the plaint plan filed by the plaintiff. The existing channel, which is a plan marked one, runs on the southern and western extremity of the land belonging to Easwaran, then it turns west wise and runs across the property of Narayanasamy to reach the plaintiffs property comprised in Survey No.1086. The said plan marked channel is shown in the plaint plan as ABCD. The plaintiff wants to take water from the sluice through a new channel to be formed through the points marked in the plaint plan as EFGH. So far as forming of a channel across the eastern land of the plaintiff, namely between the points F & G is concerned, there cannot be any impediment for according such a permission, because the appellant/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said stretch of land through which he wants to form a channel. But he wants the extension of the channel from point G to H through an east-west village road (ittery). The plaintiff cannot claim any right to seek forming of a channel along the ittery, which is meant for taking carts, cattle, etc. besides serving as a path for the local residents. It is also not the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the lands lying in between point G and survey No.1086 belongs to him. They belong to third parties, namely Easwaran and Narayanasamy. It is not the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the owners of the said lands have given their consent for forming a channel on the northern extremity of their lands so as to enable the plaintiff to take water through the said channel to survey No.1086. When the plaintiff does not possess such a legal right, that itself shall be enough to non-suit the plaintiff for the reliefs sought for in the suit. 5. When the plaintiff does not possess such a legal right, that itself shall be enough to non-suit the plaintiff for the reliefs sought for in the suit. 5. In addition to that, as pointed supra, it is not feasible to form a channel in the direction pointed out by the plaintiff in his plaint and the plaint plan without abridging the ittery or without drawing the channel through third persons land. On that score also, the plaintiff is bound to fail. Though the present second appeal is an appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court, this court is not satisfied that any substantial question of law is involved. Therefore, the appeal is bound to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. In the result the second appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost since the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.