Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the third party in the suit in O.S.No.142 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District. The first respondent filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondents 2 & 3 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The respondents 2 & 3 filed a written statement stating that the suit property is a water channel and the first respondent and her son viz., Gurusamy, who was working as Assistant in the Office of the Joint Director of Horticulture, Pudukkottai had encroached the supply channel to Mathu Kanmoi at S.No.425/27 and put up fencing in the supply channel adjacent to their own property. By the letter dated 30.08.2012, the Junior Engineer of the respondents 2 & 3 requested the Tahsildhar, Thirumayam to survey the supply channel and give the details of encroachment. Based on the letter, the suit property was surveyed by the Taluk Surveyor on 09.09.2012. The first respondent and her son were present at the time of survey. During the survey, the encroachments were confirmed by the surveyor and the first respondent and her son were advised to remove the encroachments for their own. The first respondent's son Gurusamy had given a consent letter to the Junior Engineer that he would remove the encroachments on or before 15.09.2012. The first respondent's son removed the encroachments, but not completely. Then the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.142 of 2012 for injunction. While the suit is pending, the petitioner representing Aayacutudhars of survey No.461, Mathu Kanmoi of Lembalakudy Revenue Village, Thirumayam Taluk filed an application in I.A.No.22 of 2013 for impleading themselves as party defendants to the suit. According to the petitioner, they are the Aayacutudhars of Mathukanmoiand because of the encroachments made by the first respondent and others, the flow of water to Mathu Kanmoi is affected and they are not able to get normal quantity of water for their cultivation. 2. The first respondent in the counter affidavit stated that the land in question is shown as Government poromboke. There is no proof to show that the land in question is a water channel. Since the property is Government poromboke, the petitioner is not necessary and proper party and prayed for dismissal of I.A. 3. 2. The first respondent in the counter affidavit stated that the land in question is shown as Government poromboke. There is no proof to show that the land in question is a water channel. Since the property is Government poromboke, the petitioner is not necessary and proper party and prayed for dismissal of I.A. 3. After considering the materials on record, the learned Judge, by the order dated 23.07.2013, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Against the order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Anandraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 & 3. There is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit. 6. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents 2 & 3 have stated that even though the encroached area is mentioned as Government poromboke, as per geographical nature, it is only a water channel. Further, only on the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondents 2 & 3 surveyed the land, which revealed that the land in question is a water channel. The first respondent's son Mr.Gurusamy also gave a letter agreeing to remove the encroachments. The first respondent, in fact, removed the encroachment to an extent, but did not remove the encroachment completely. The learned Judge failed to consider this aspect. The learned Judge erred in holding that in a suit for injunction, the only question to be considered is whether the first respondent is in possession of the property in question. 7. It is seen from the records that the respondents 2 & 3 had surveyed the lands only on the complaint given by the petitioner. Further, as it has been stated by the respondents 2 & 3 that the land in question is a water channel, as per the geographical nature and if the said water channel is locked, the petitioners will be affected. Therefore, the petitioners are necessary and proper party. 8. In view of all the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District is set aside. No costs.