EASEMENTS / IRRIGATION RIGHTS – FIELD CHANNEL (PANTA BODE) – PROOF OF EXISTENCE AND USE – ADMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONER’S REPORT. Plaintiffs pleaded existence of panta bode on southern side of D-plot wet land of defendant No.1 and that both P1 and P2 items were irrigated only through Y–Y1–Y2 channel for decades, this being reflected in title documents (Will of Vicharapu Lakshmi Devamma – Ex.A2; sale deed in favour of first plaintiff – Ex.A1). Defendants denied existence of any such channel and hence denied any right to draw water. In evidence, D.W.1 (defendant No.1) admitted in cross-examination that a panta bode exists and, in his own caveat affidavit (Ex.A5), described the boundaries of his land with panta bode on south and west. Exs.C1 to C3 (Commissioner’s report and plans) also corroborated physical existence of the channel corresponding to Y–Y1–Y2. Courts below held that defendants came to Court with “unclean hands” by initially denying existence of the channel despite their own documents and admissions. High Court upheld the approach, noting that these were factual findings squarely within the domain of trial and first appellate Courts.

1. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – SECTION 100 – SECOND APPEAL – SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE – CONCURRENT FINDINGS ON EXISTENCE OF IRRIGATION CHANNEL (PANTA BODE) AND RIGHT TO USE WATER – NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.
   Suit by plaintiffs for (i) mandatory injunction to restore field channel “Y–Y1–Y2 panta bode” and (ii) permanent injunction restraining defendants from obstructing flow of water through said channel to P1 and P2 wet lands. Trial Court decreed suit on basis of recitals in title documents (Ex.A1 sale deed; Ex.A2 Will), Advocate-Commissioner’s report and plans (Exs.C1–C3), and clear admission by D.W.1 (defendant No.1) in cross-examination and in caveat affidavit (Ex.A5) regarding existence of panta bode abutting D-plot. First appellate Court reappreciated oral and documentary evidence, concurred with findings, and dismissed appeal. In second appeal, defendants attempted to reopen factual findings by styling them as “substantial questions of law” (non-maintenance of suit without declaratory relief; executants’ right to draw water; non-extension of easement to Item 1; alleged misappreciation of evidence). High Court held that issues were purely factual, no perversity or misapplication of law shown, and that Section 100 CPC does not permit re-appraisal of concurrent findings. Second appeal dismissed; no costs.

2. SPECIFIC RELIEF – SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF WHEN NOT NECESSARY – EXISTING RIGHT TO USE COMMON FIELD CHANNEL.
   Defendants contended that plaintiffs ought to have sought a declaratory relief regarding an alleged easement / existing right to draw water from Y–Y1–Y2 panta bode and that suit for mandatory and permanent injunction simpliciter was not maintainable. High Court reframed the only arguable issue as: “Whether the suit for mandatory injunction and consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs without seeking grant of declaratory relief of existing right to draw water through panta bode marked as Y, Y1 and Y2 is maintainable?” On evidence, Court found that panta bode was an existing, admitted field channel used for irrigation; plaintiffs never claimed exclusive easementary right but only protection against obstruction of a common channel whose existence and use were evidenced in Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and admitted by D.W.1 and in Ex.A5. Held, in such circumstances, where the right asserted is an existing, admitted, and factually proved incident of enjoyment and plaintiffs are not setting up a complex or disputed title to the channel itself, a suit confined to mandatory and prohibitory injunction is maintainable and does not mandatorily require a separate declaratory relief.

3. EASEMENTS / IRRIGATION RIGHTS – FIELD CHANNEL (PANTA BODE) – PROOF OF EXISTENCE AND USE – ADMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONER’S REPORT.
   Plaintiffs pleaded existence of panta bode on southern side of D-plot wet land of defendant No.1 and that both P1 and P2 items were irrigated only through Y–Y1–Y2 channel for decades, this being reflected in title documents (Will of Vicharapu Lakshmi Devamma – Ex.A2; sale deed in favour of first plaintiff – Ex.A1). Defendants denied existence of any such channel and hence denied any right to draw water. In evidence, D.W.1 (defendant No.1) admitted in cross-examination that a panta bode exists and, in his own caveat affidavit (Ex.A5), described the boundaries of his land with panta bode on south and west. Exs.C1 to C3 (Commissioner’s report and plans) also corroborated physical existence of the channel corresponding to Y–Y1–Y2. Courts below held that defendants came to Court with “unclean hands” by initially denying existence of the channel despite their own documents and admissions. High Court upheld the approach, noting that these were factual findings squarely within the domain of trial and first appellate Courts.

4. PLEADINGS – SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW – WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, A “QUESTION OF LAW” UNDER SECTION 100 CPC.
   Four “substantial questions of law” were proposed by appellants, including: necessity of a declaratory suit; lack of link-document establishing right to draw water; alleged non-extension of easement to Item 1; and alleged misappreciation of evidence. High Court observed that, except for the first point (which itself was not properly framed), the other proposed questions were essentially factual challenges dressed up as questions of law, turning on appreciation of title recitals, admissions, and Commissioner’s report. Court reframed only one legal issue (maintainability of injunction suit without declaration) and held against the appellants. Remaining points were based on factual disputes already decided concurrently and hence outside Section 100’s limited revisional jurisdiction.

5. EVIDENCE – WEIGHT OF ADMISSIONS BY PARTY – CAVEAT AFFIDAVIT – BOUNDARY RECITALS.
   Defendants’ written statement contained a blanket denial of existence of any channel “Y–Y1–Y2”. However, D.W.1, in cross-examination, candidly admitted presence of a panta bode. Further, in a caveat petition affidavit (Ex.A5), defendant described his own land boundaries, explicitly mentioning panta bode to south and west in D.No.353/1. Courts below treated these admissions, coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 recitals and Commissioner’s local inspection (Exs.C1–C3), as decisive proof of the channel’s existence and of the plaintiffs’ use of it. High Court endorsed this evidentiary approach: a party’s own sworn boundary description and subsequent admissions in cross-examination can outweigh bare denials in pleadings.

6. CIVIL PROCEDURE – APPELLATE JURISDICTION – ROLE OF FIRST APPELLATE COURT UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER XLI, AND HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 100.
   First appellate Court correctly framed specific points for determination on entitlement to mandatory and permanent injunction and possible error by trial Court, then re-appreciated the evidence of PWs 1–5, DWs 1–4, Exs.A1–A4 and Exs.C1–C3. It concluded that there was a long-standing panta bode and that defendants had obstructed flow, justifying both mandatory restoration of Y–Y1 portion and prohibitory injunction. High Court held that such a re-appraisal fell squarely within Section 96 and Order XLI, and that in the absence of perversity, misreading, or reliance on inadmissible evidence, it cannot supplant those findings in second appeal.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The litigation is a good illustration of (a) how irrigation rights over field channels are protected through injunctions without elaborate declaratory prayers, and (b) how Section 100 CPC insulates concurrent factual findings from re-litigation.

1. Factual matrix and pleadings

The plaintiffs’ case can be broken down precisely:

• Two items of wet land (P1 and P2 plots) are cultivated by plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively.

• Defendant No.1 owns D and D3 plots; D1 and D2 plots are with other branches of the same family as per Lakshmi Devamma’s Will (Ex.A2).

• On the southern side abutting D-plot, there exists a “Panta Bode” – the field channel – shown in the plaint plan as Y–Y1–Y2.

• For over 50 years, the plaintiffs’ lands have been irrigated by water drawn through this Y–Y1–Y2 channel.

• The existence of this channel and the right to draw water are expressly recognized in:
  – the Will of Vicharapu Lakshmi Devamma (Ex.A2), and
  – the sale deed in favour of first plaintiff (Ex.A1), which conveys P1 item “with right to draw irrigation water through Y, Y1, Y2 panta bode”.

On this foundation, they allege:

• Owing to disputes between first plaintiff and first defendant, defendants, out of malice, closed the Y–Y1 portion by dumping earth, thereby choking the flow.

• They seek:
  – mandatory injunction to restore Y–Y1 panta bode portion, and
  – permanent injunction restraining obstruction of flow through Y–Y1–Y2.

Defence stand:

• Defendants flatly deny existence of any Y–Y1–Y2 channel and thus deny any right in plaintiffs to draw water therefrom.

• They say no such channel ever existed, so restoration cannot arise.

• They do not produce any title document to contradict Ex.A1 and Ex.A2; they rest on bare denial and arguments about non-maintainability of an injunction suit without declaration.

2. Evidence and how the Courts evaluated it

Plaintiffs’ side:

• P.Ws 1 to 5, including parties and supporting witnesses, all speak to long-standing existence and use of Y–Y1–Y2 as a field channel.

• Ex.A1 (sale deed in favour of P1) recites:
  – existence of Y–Y1–Y2 panta bode, and
  – right to draw water through it.

• Ex.A2 (Will of Lakshmi Devamma) recites:
  – allocation of P2, D, D1–D3 plots, and
  – mention of irrigation arrangements including the panta bode.

• Exs.C1–C3:
  – Commissioner’s report and plans (including Mandal Surveyor’s sketch) corroborate a channel corresponding to Y–Y1–Y2 on the ground.

Defendants’ side:

• DWs 1–4 examined, but no documents produced.

• Initially deny existence of Y–Y1–Y2 channel in pleadings.

• Under cross-examination, D.W.1 admits there is a panta bode.

• In earlier caveat affidavit (Ex.A5), D.W.1 described his land as bounded on south and west by panta bode, thus independently confirming existence.

Trial Court’s appreciation:

• Found Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 internally consistent with plaintiffs’ narrative.

• Treated Ex.A5 and DW1’s admission as clinching against the defendants’ denial.

• Relied on Commissioner’s report and plans to tie documentary recitals to physical reality.

• Held that defendants had obstructed Y–Y1 portion and that plaintiffs were entitled to both mandatory and permanent injunction.

First appellate Court:

• Confirmed that defendants had no documentary material to refute plaintiffs’ chain of title recitals and usage of the channel.

• Noted that defendants’ own caveat and cross-examination admissions destroyed their denial of the channel’s existence.

• Held that trial Court’s decree restoring Y–Y1 and restraining obstruction was justified.

• Distinguished the precedents cited by appellants as factually inapposite (those cases dealt with different factual and legal configurations of easement, declaration, and injunction).

3. The central legal issue: injunction suit without formal declaration

In second appeal, counsel tried to elevate the following into “substantial questions of law”:

• Plaintiffs were allegedly bound to seek a declaratory relief about a pre-existing easement / right to draw water from Y–Y1–Y2.

• Executants of Ex.A2 supposedly had no right to grant such a right.

• Easementary right, even if any, could not extend to Item 1 of plaint schedule.

• Courts mis-appreciated oral and documentary evidence.

The High Court correctly separated law from fact.

On maintainability:

• It reframed the only arguable point as:

  Whether the suit for mandatory injunction and consequential permanent injunction, without declaratory relief of an existing right to draw water through Y–Y1–Y2 panta bode, is maintainable?

• It then applied a practical test:
  – Plaintiffs are not seeking declaration of title to the channel.
  – They are asserting an existing, historically recognized mode of irrigation, evidenced in documents and corroborated by defendants’ own admissions.
  – They do not claim exclusive easementary ownership; they only want the common channel restored and kept unobstructed.

On that basis, the Court held:

• Where the existence and use of such a channel is not a complex, hotly disputed title issue but an incident of enjoyment already recognized in title instruments and admitted by the opponent, relief by way of mandatory and prohibitory injunction is maintainable without a separate declaratory prayer.

This is consistent with the broader line of authority (e.g. Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy) that:

• If there is only interference with lawful possession or enjoyment (here, irrigation through a recognized channel), an injunction suit can lie.

• A separate declaratory suit is insisted upon primarily where title itself is in substantial dispute or complicated.

Here, “right to draw water” is treated as an existing, factually proven incident of possession rather than as a fresh easement to be judicially declared.

4. Burden of proof and admissions

On burden:

• Plaintiffs bore the burden to prove:
  – existence of the panta bode;
  – their use of it to irrigate P1 and P2; and
  – obstruction by defendants.

• They discharged that burden through:
  – recitals in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2;
  – oral evidence of PWs;
  – Commissioner’s report;
  – and, significantly, defendants’ admissions.

Once that prima facie case was made, the evidentiary burden shifted to the defendants to meaningfully rebut it. They failed:

• No contrary documentary evidence.

• Their own previous affidavit (Ex.A5) and cross-examination of DW1 supported plaintiffs.

This is why the High Court used strong language about defendants having come with “unclean hands” – they denied on pleading what they had already admitted on oath elsewhere.

5. Section 100 CPC: why the second appeal had to fail

The High Court applied the standard Section 100 filter:

• Majority of the “substantial questions” were, in reality, arguments that:
  – Ex.A1 / Ex.A2 were misread;
  – Exs.C1–C3 should not have been given weight;
  – DW1’s admissions should not be conclusive.

These are classic re-appreciation arguments, which Section 100 rejects unless there is:

• a wrong legal test, or

• reliance on inadmissible evidence, or

• complete omission of vital material, or

• a perverse inference contrary to the record.

Here:

• The Courts below relied on formally admitted documents, commissioner’s report, and sworn admissions – all admissible materials.

• The legal test applied (injunction standard + easement/incident of possession analysis) was orthodox.

• No key document of the defendants was overlooked because they produced none.

Hence, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.