The next agreement was signed in 1924. Karnataka, on the other hand, was free to carry out future irrigation expansions within his state under the Cauvery and its tributaries, to a measure that is now set at 110,000 hectares. The intervention of the British government signed the general agreement of 1892 between the two states. The agreement, entitled “Rules defining the limits within which no new irrigation site is to be established by the State of Mysore without prior reference to the Madras government,” established six negotiating rules between the two states on Cauvery water. Karnataka`s lawyer and the chief lawyer, Fali Nariman, who opened the arguments, stated that the 1892 and 1924 pacts between the then palestre states, Mysore and The Madras government, reflected an “inequality of bargaining power” that was “unaware” and could not claim validity after the birth of the Indian Constitution. Now that the SC maintains the validity of the pre-independence agreements, the only way forward for Karnataka to have its position on these two agreements, which have no value, be re-established, can only be obtained by an audit petition, if at all. February 5, 2007: The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal holds the two middle incomes of 1892 and 1924 that were established between the governments of Madras and Mysore on water sharing on Tamil Nadu. The first agreement on the sharing of water on the Cavery River dates from 1892 between the presidency of Madras and the spring state of Mysuru. Then, in February 2007, when the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal delivered its verdict, it found that “the agreements reached between the governments of Mysore and Madras at the time cannot be invalidated, especially after an extinction of more than 110 and 80 years.” Much of the current dispute between the two states stems from some conflicting assertions made by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu about the 1924 agreement. The Karnataka government believes that since the 1924 agreement was to expire after 50 years, its clauses cannot apply to the current allocation of water. Secondly, the State asserts that, considering that Tamil Nadu, when the agreement was signed, a British province and Karnataka was a princely agreement, it did not have the freedom to defend its interests as much as it would have liked. While the disputes before independence between Mysore (now largely Karnataka) and Madras (now largely Tamil Nadu and parts of Kerala) were largely settled by British arbitration and agreements, water sharing became a serious problem after the reorganization of the state. Beginning in 1959 and in the 1960s, Tamil Nadu objected to Karnataka building two dams, but these continued due to the failure of the five discussion sessions to resolve the dispute.
In 1974, Karnataka claimed that the 1924 agreement had the effect of stopping the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 years and that the dispute as we know it today was at the centre of the debate.