PATNEEDI RUDRAYYA versus VELUGUBANTLA VENKAYYA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 10-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-<l,pril IO. 
• 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
PATNEEDIRUDRAYYA 
v. 
[1962) 
VELUGUBANTLA VENKAYYA AND OTHERS 
(K. SuBBA. RAo, RAoHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Easements-Natural right of drainage-Rights of riparian 
owner -
If could impede natural flow of wat<r -
Phenomenon 
happening from time immemorial-Meaning of-Indian EaS<ment 
Act, I882 (5 of I882), SS. 7, II. 
The respondents r and z constructed a bnnd on their own 
land and dug trenches with a view to protect their lands from 
being inundated by the flood waters of the Vakada drain; as a 
result of that, the flood water flowing from appellant's field in 
the Northerly direction could not find an outlet and stagnated 
on his land thus doing damage to his crops. The appellant 
based the right of drainage in the Northerly direction of all 
water falling, on or invading his land including flood water on 
immemorial user, and not on the natural right of the owner of 
higher land to drain-off water falling on his land on to lower 
lands. The Courts below found inter alia that the inundation 
of the appellant's land was not unusual, abnormal or occasional 
but was an event which occurred every year in the usual course 
of nature, and was a happening from time immemorial. The 
High Court came to the conclusion that the flooding of the 
fields was not an event recurring periodically from time im-
memorial but something unusual and that water being a common 
enemy of all, the defendants Nos. r and 2 were within their 
rights in constructing the bunds and digging the trenches. The 
point was whether a person had right to create an impediment 
in the flow of water along its natural direction. 
Held, that a 'phenomenon' can be said to have been happen-
ing from time immemorial if the date when it first occurred was 
not within the memory of a man or was shrouded in the mist of 
antiquity. Where the court upon the evidence available was 
unable to fix the precise year of commencement of the pheno-
menon, the proper inference would be that the phenomenon had 
been known to occur from time immemorial. 
Held, further, that the only right the riparian owner may 
have, is to protect himself against extraordinary floods, but 
even then he would not be entitled to impede the flow of the 
stream along its natural course. When the owner of the lower 
ground by creating an embankment impedes the natural flow of 
water he would be obstructing the natural outlet for that water. 
It would make little difference that the water happened to be 
not merely rain water, but flood water provided the flood water 
was of a kind to which higher land was subjected perodically. 
' ' ' 
- .. 
' . 
• • 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
837 
In the present case the bund erected and the trenches dug 
z96z 
up by the respondents r and 2 causing stagnation of flood water 
constituted a wrongful act. 
Rudrayy• 
v. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
venkayy• 
2 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the jugment and 
decree dated December 18, 1953, of the Madras High 
Court in Second Appeal No. 24 of 1949. 
K. Bhimasankaram and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the 
appellant. 
K. R. Choudhri, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
1961. 
April 10. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUDHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
Mudholkar ]. 
from the judgment of the Madras High Court in a 
second appeal reversing the decrees of the two courts 
below. 
The plaintiff who is the appellant before us is the 
owner of survey no. 159 of the village Vemulavada 
while defendants 1 and 2 are owners of survey no. 158 
lying to the north of survey no. 159 and adjoining. 
• 
The defendant no. 3 is the owner of a field lying to 
the north of survey no. 158. To the south of survey 
no. 159 is survey no. 160 belonging to the brother of 
the plaintiff. Immediately beyond this field and to 
the south are a "parallel drain'', into which flow the 
waters of the Vakada drain, and Tulyabhaga drain 
both running west to east. It would appear that the 
parallel drain is an artificial drain while the Tulya-
bhaga is a natural drain. The parallel drain ends 
abruptly at the eastern end of survey no. 150 at a 
distance of about two furlongs or so to the east of 
survey no. 160. 
According to the plaintiff rain water falling on sur-
vey nos. 160 and 159 flows in the northern direction 
over survey no. 158 and then enters into a drain 
shown in the map and indicated by the letters EE. 
In normal times the water in t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.