( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vijay Chowdary, learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri anand, counsel representing the respondents. Sri Vijay Chowdary, learned counsel representing the appellants had raised the following substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Whether the Courts below are legally justified in granting the relief of mandatory injunction, though such a relief was not prayed for?

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants had taken this Court through all factual details, the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3, D. W. 1 to D. W. 3, Exs. A1 and A2 and exs. B1 and B2 and also Exs. C1and C2 in detail and also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the Courts below and had commented that definitely the Courts below are not legally justified in granting the relief of mandatory injunction without a plea or without a prayer in relation thereto.

( 3 ) THE counsel also would maintain that even on facts both the Courts had totally erred and had recorded erroneous findings and had pointed out to the relevant portion of such finding recorded by both the Courts below. The counsel also would maintain that Ex. B2 F. M. B. plan clearly goes to show that alternative source of irrigation is available, but despite the same, an incorrect finding has been recorded in this regard. Per contra, Sri Anand, learned counsel representing the respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by both the Courts below in general and the findings recorded by the appellate Court at para 18 of its judgment in particular and had pointed out that it is clear from the 2nd commissioner s report that subsequent to the granting of temporary injunction, the defendants closed the canal obstructing the flow of water and hence, taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration in fitness of things, the relief of mandatory injunction also had been granted. The learned counsel in all fairness submitted that this relief of mandatory injunction was granted on the ground of equity suo motu and there is no specific relief prayed for in this regard in the pleadings. However, the counsel would maintain that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if the relief of mandatory injunction is disturbed on this technical ground, substantial justice would not be done to the respondent-plaintiff, inasmuch as it is clear from the facts that he would suffer heavy loss. Heard both the counsel and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court.

( 4 ) THE respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit O. S. No. 163 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Chirala prayed for declaration that the plaintiffs has got right to take water from Voosamallaya Sona through t. V. ABCD Channel shown in the plaint plan and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the said channel in taking water from plaintiff s land shown as plot Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint as hereunder: the plan filed with the plaint may be read as part and parcel of the plaint. Plots 1 and 2 of the plaint plan shown as GHLK is called Gudichati Chenu. Defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of plots 3 and 4 shown as EFGH in the plan. Plots 5 to 7 belongs to Ronda Pattabhi Rami Reddy who is the brother of the plaintiff. All lands are cultivated as wet lands under Sona. The Sona spring channel shown as x in the plan as called Vura Mallay Sona and the plaintiff, his brother and defendants 1 and 2 have got right to take water from the same to plots 1 to 7. The right of the plaintiff and his brother in the Sona Channel x and the new Sona spring shown as y in the plan are incorporated in the partition deed between plaintiff s father and his uncle s sons which is dated 7-10-1950. The Vusa Mallaya Sona channel x and new Sona y have been