TMI Blog1934 (1) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff a decree for the principal relief claimed in the plaint. The question is mainly one of fact, and it is well settled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, however erroneous, unless they are vitiated by some error of law. Subsequently to the date of the judgments under appeal, the Board has bad occasion to emphasise the fact that this rule is equally applicable to cases, such as this, in which the findings of the lower appellate Court are based on inferences drawn from the documents exhibited in evidence. This question is dealt with in the third and fourth propositions laid down in the judgment delivered by Sir Bino ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter referred to as the S. village; and the present suit was instituted by the temple trustees against the first Defendant, the Secretary of State fur India in Council, in respect of an order passed by Mr. Lionel Davidson, then Collector of Tinnevelly regulating the distribution of water under the Tambraparni project between the S. village and the adjoining village of Attur, which is situated lower down the river. The Attur ryots were subsequently impleaded as supplemental Defendants 2 to 21. Defendants 2, 4 and 8 have joined with the first Defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, in preferring this appeal to His Majesty in Council, and the other Defendants have been cited as Respondents. 4. Prior to the introduction of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verted the supply which the Attur tank had till then received through the sluice C. This system remained in force from 1872, when the anicut was completed, until 1877, when, owing to complaints of the Attur ryots, one of the walls of the aqueduct E was lewered so as to allow water to drop into the Attur channel at this point. There were further changes in 1882, when a Government order was passed directing the destruction of the aqueduct E, the closing of the vent in the S. tank, and the construction near the point E of a sluice N for the supply of the channel discharging into the S. tank and a drop to pass water into the Attur channel. The result would have been that all water not drawn off through the sluice N would have passed into the At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if the existing invasion of the rights were allowed to continue, they would be obliged to seek redress in a Court of law. Mr. Davidson referred this petition to the District Executive Engineer, an officer belonging to the Public Works Department, for early remarks, with the observation that the Petitioners' sole request was that Mr. Buckley's order should be duly enforced. This incident was closed some months later by an official letter from the Executive Engineer of the District on the 12th February, 1910, submitting proposals which he considered would give the Attur ryots a somewhat better supply of low water than they had received through the opening in the dam M. This he considered would be only fair in view of their prior ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is village S had been irrigated by a channel taking off from a sluice A, and the Attur village by a channel taking off from a sluice B lower down; that the Attur irrigation, through sluice B having become impracticable, owing to the deepening of the river bed, a sluice C had been constructed higher up the river, and a channel, CG, leading to the Attur tank; that this sluice and channel had been constructed for the benefit of both villages, and that the S village had always enjoyed prior rights of supply when the water in the channel was low. After setting out the changes that had taken place under the Tambraparni project, which have already been sufficiently described, the plaint alleged that the Collector's order of the 21st April, 191 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, a right in no way depending on their position as separian proprietors lower down the river. The District Judge also found that the Defendant had failed to prove that the Government had contracted with the Plaintiff to give the S village a priority of supply. These findings, in their Lordships' opinion, are sufficient to dispose of the case, is the Plaintiff has failed to prove that he sustained any damage by reason of Mr. Davidson's order, which was based on the priority as to the supply of low water in the river which the Attur ryots had enjoyed before the introduction of the Tambraparni project interfered with their customary supply Far from being prejudiced by the project, the Plaintiff's S village, as found by the Distric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
