JUDGMENT : 1. Second appeal Nos. 1428 & 1397 of 2003 have been laid impugning the common Judgment and decree dated 23.10.2002 passed in A.S.Nos.102 of 2002 & 103 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode confirming the common judgment and decree dated 18.07.2001 passed in O.S.Nos.66 of 1998 & 17 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi. 2. The appellant has laid the suit in O.S.No.17 of 1997 against the respondents for the relief of permanent injunction. 3. The respondents have laid the suit in O.S.No.66 of 1998 against the appellant for the relief of mandatory injunction. 4. The suit is found to be laid in respect of the channel shown as ABCD in the plaint plan as far as O.S.No.17 of 1997 is concerned and the suit in O.S.No.66 of 1998 has been laid in respect of the suit channel shown as DE in the plaint plan appended to the said suit. 5. The case of the appellant in both cases, in brief, is that he owns lands in R.S.No.388 to an extent of 3 acres and has been irrigating the same with LBP canal water and accordingly, had formed the channel shown as ABCD in the plaint plan and been irrigating LBP water through the said channel and except the suit channel, the appellant has no other channel to irrigate his lands and due to misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondents, the respondents attempted to interfere with the appellant's right to irrigate his lands through the suit channel and demolish the same, to which, the respondents are not entitled to and hence, according to the appellant, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. 6. 6. Per contra, the case of the respondents in both cases, in brief, is that a channel originates from the LBP main canal and runs in north-south direction in between the lands of the third parties and the appellant is the owner of R.S.No.388 and the respondents are the owners of the land in R.S.No.389, which is situated to the East of R.S.No.388 and aggrieved at the purchase of the land in R.S.No.389 by the respondents, the appellant demolished the channel at DE portion shown in the plaint plan, which runs on the northern extremity of R.S.No.388 in east-west direction to a length of 69.4 metres and after the obliteration of the same, the appellant laid the suit falsely against the respondents in O.S.No.17 of 1997 and on account of the obliteration at the DE portion of the suit Channel, according to the respondents, they have been prevented from irrigating their lands by using the LPB water and hence, they had been constrained to lay the suit for the relief of mandatory injunction. 7. Considering the subject matter involved in both the suits being the same and the parties involved in the suits are also the same, common evidence was recorded in both the suits by the trial Court and accordingly, the evidence had come to be recorded in O.S.No.17 of 1997 and in support of the appellant's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked and on the side of the respondents, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. Exs.C1 & C2 were also marked. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to accept the case of the respondents and accordingly, granted the relief sought for by them and dismissed the suit laid by the appellant. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeals have been preferred. 9. At the time of admission of the second appeals, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: (i) Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated and applied the principles to find out the existence of the suit channel or irrigation rights in favour of the respondents in the absence of any revenue records to establish the existence of the said suit channel as claimed by the respondents? (ii) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction based on the revenue proceedings in Ex.B8 especially when there is no such right or irrigation has been given to the respondents in their title deeds in Ex.B1 to Ex.B4? (iii) Whether the respondents have established the existence of the suit channel and their right of irrigation as per the provisions of the Board Standing Order? 10. The suits have come to be laid by the appellant as well as the respondents with reference to the channel and from the materials placed, it is found that the appellant owns land in R.S.No.388 and the respondents own land in R.S.No.389. It is not in dispute that both the lands of the appellant as well as the respondents are LBP Ayakattu lands and accordingly, they are irrigating their lands through the suit channel by drawing water from the main LBP canal and the materials placed on record also disclose that the suits channel branches from the main LBP canal i.e. from LBP Koppu branch from north - south and then, turns to east and it is further found that the channel branches through the appellant's lands and proceed further to the respondents' lands and continue to flow even further. Inasmuch as there is no dispute as regards the properties owned by the respective parties and the dispute is only with reference to the suit channels, now according to the appellant, due to enmity, the respondents are attempting to interfere with his right to draw water through the suit channel as depicted in the plaint plan and on the other hand, according to the respondents, it is only the appellant, who had destroyed the DE portion of the suit channel running in R.S.No.388 and thereby, prevented the respondents from irrigating their lands using the water from the LBP canal and hence, it is the case of the respondents, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for the relief of mandatory injunction. 11. 11. The Thasildar has been examined as DW2 in this matter and it is not in dispute that he would be a competent person to speak about the existence of the suits channel with reference to which, the parties are vying with each other and from the evidence of DW2, it is found that both the lands of the appellant as well as the respondents are being irrigated only through LBP Channel and that, the suit channel starts at the northern portion from LBP Koppu branch channel, runs north -south and then turns towards east and further, it is found that while running from north south, the channel runs in between the lands of the third parties and then turns towards the east and passes through the appellant's lands situated in R.S.No.388 and further, passes through the respondents' lands situated in R.S.No.389 and proceeded further. Accordingly, it is found that from the topography sketch of the village certified by the Village Administrative Officer, the suits channel has been in existence over a long period of time and the suits channel has been shown in violet colour in the plan marked as Ex.B9 and further, it is also found that the suit channel remains intact except in the portion of the appellant's land in R.S.No.388 and accordingly, it is seen that from the evidence of DW2 and the documents marked as Exs.B5 to 9, the suits channel is demolished/ destroyed in the portion of the appellant's land and accordingly, the obliterated northern portion of the channel has been shown in red colour. It is further found that on the obliteration of the suit channel in the appellant's land, the respondents have initiated proceedings before the revenue authorities and accordingly, based upon the enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities and the documents marked as Ex.B5 to 9 in toto, it is found that the suit channel had been destroyed at the portion in R.S.No.388 belonging to the appellant and accordingly, it is found that the appellant had destroyed the suit channel running in the portion of his lands, so as to prevent the respondents from irrigating their lands by drawing water from the main LBP canal. Therefore, the Courts below rightly placed reliance upon the documents placed on record, which clearly depict that the lands of the appellant as well as the respondents are being irrigated only through the suit channel and on account of the obliteration of the suit channel in R.S.No.388 by the appellant, the respondents had been prevented from drawing water from the main canal. 12. As rightly determined by the Courts below, when the ABCD portion of the suit channel runs in between the lands of the third parties, the case of the appellant that the respondents are attempting to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit channel running in the ABCD as such cannot be believed and accepted and rightly rejected by the Courts below. No infirmity is noted in the determination of the Courts below that the appellant has laid the suit falsely against the respondents, after demolishing the channel portion running in his lands. The facts being above, it is found that the respondents had established that it is only the appellant, who had obliterated the portion of the suit channel as depicted in the plaint plan and in such view of the matter, strictly speaking, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these second appeals. 13. In the light of the above discussions, the Courts below have properly appreciated the materials placed on record and determined that the suits channel remains intact except in the portion of the appellant's land and accordingly, upheld the case of the respondents and rejected the case of the appellant. The respondents have established their right to draw water from the main LBP canal through the suit channel based upon the records placed for consideration coupled with their title deeds marked as Exs.B1 to 4. The substantial questions of law involved in these second appeals are accordingly answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. In conclusion, the second appeals fail and accordingly, are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.