THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO.682 OF 1994 Dated 18th February, 2010 Between: Syed Masthan and two others …Appellants And Nayudu Veeraiah and others …Respondents Counsel for the appellants: None appeared Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy Counsel for respondents 4 and 5: None appeared The Court made the following JUDGMENT: Defendants 6 to 8 are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The respondents have filed O.S.No.464 of 1975 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chirala for declaration of right of the villagers of Daggupadu Village to take water from the village tank called “Pedda Cheruvu” for purposes of drinking by men and cattle and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants 3 to 14 from cultivating the lands in Survey No.149/2 and contaminating the water in the tank. After a keen contest, the suit was decreed by the trial Court on finding all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. Defendants 6 to 8 and 11 filed an appeal against the said judgment, which was registered as A.S.No.38 of 1979 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala. The said appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Three of the defendants, namely; defendant Nos.6, 7 and 8 filed this Second Appeal feeling aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that there has been no representation on behalf of the appellants on a number of occasions. Even today, there is no representation. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for default. Even otherwise, the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed on merits. A careful perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the following seven issues were framed for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for? 3. Whether the plaint plan is correct? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties as contended by the defendant? 5. Whether the Court fee paid is not correct? 6. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? 7. To what relief? Issues 1 to 3 were considered together. P.W.1, who is plaintiff No.1, has categorically stated in his evidence that the suit tank is a fresh water tank situated over Acs.55.00 in Survey Nos.149/2 and 155/2. He has also deposed that defendants 3 to 14 have unauthorisedly encroached into the land in Survey No.149/2 with the aid of the Sarpanch of defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat and have been unauthorisedly cultivating the land. He further deposed that the land occupied by the said defendants is serving as catchment to the tank and that the unauthorized occupation by the said defendants was causing obstruction to the flow of the water into the tank apart from the water in the tank getting contaminated due to use of chemical fertilisers and manure. The trial Court, apart from relying upon the oral evidence, also relied upon the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.2, wherein it is admitted that the land in Survey No.149/2 is classified as tank poramboke and is lying in the catchment area of the tank in question. The trial Court also rejected the objection that the suit filed by a few villagers is not maintainable in representative capacity. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court, having re-appreciated the entire evidence, agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. At the hearing, no one represented the appellants to argue the substantial questions of law, if any, arising in the Second Appeal. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments under appeal. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th February, 2010 vrn