( 1 ) THE defendants in the suit are the appellants. They filed this second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-4-2001, passed by the Additional district Judge, Vizianagaram, in A. S. No. 125 of 1998, reversing the judgment and decree, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, gajapathinagaram, in O. S. No. 206 of 1996, dated 19-3-1998.

( 2 ) A piece of agricultural land was owned by one Kandhi Rama Naidu. He had three sons namely, Guru Naidu, appala Naidu and Satyanarayana, who after the death of their father, partitioned the property among themselves: Whether or not there was a condition in the partition, it appears that the three were using the water for agricultural purposes from a well situated in the eastern corner of the agricultural field called "peda Akumadi". As years passed by, Guru Naidu, presumably the eldest son of late Rama naidu, sold an extent of Ac. 1-50 cents in sy. Nos. 185/10,185/2,182/3 and 174/1 to the 1st defendant under Ex. B-1. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and his son, the 4th appellant herein was brought on record as his legal representative. The other two sons of Rama naidu namely, Appala Naidu and satyanarayana sold their share of the property situated in Sy. Nos. 185/10,185/12 and 185/3, to the respondent-plaintiff under exs. A-1 and A-2. "peda Akumadi", where the well is situated, is in Sy. No. 185/10.

( 3 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed the suit O. S. NO. 206 of 1996 on the file of the Junior civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram, for a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the suit well, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule well. The suit claim was based on two registered sale deeds Exs. A-1 and A-2, under which the plaintiff purchased "peda Akumadi". The suit was resisted on the ground that the well in "peda Akumadi" is a common well, and therefore, the 1st defendant having purchased the property from Guru Naidu under Ex. B-1 is also entitled to draw water from the well.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 to 4 and on behalf of the defendants, D. Ws. 1 to 3, were examined, besides marking exs. A-1 to A-4 for the plaintiff and Ex. B-1 for the defendants.

( 5 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit holding that the vendors under Exs. A-1, a-2 and B-1 had joint and common rights in the well, and therefore, the subsequent purchasers of the properties under the said registered sale deeds, would also have joint and common rights in the disputed well. On appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff, the appellate Court placed reliance on Ex. A-l under which Sy. No. 185/10 "peda akumadi" was purchased by the plaintiff, and decreed the suit reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said reversing judgment, the second appeal has been filed.

( 6 ) SRI. S. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants submits that under ex. B-l, the share of Guru Naidu was purchased by the defendants, and therefore, all the rights which inhered in Guru Naidu, including the right to draw water from the well in "peda Akumadi" passed on to the defendants. He also submitted that the fact that the well was joint among the three sons of late Rama Naidu was proved by the evidence of D. Ws. 2 and 3, who are no other than the younger brothers of Guru Naidu, the vendor of defendants, that the rights inherited by the sons of Rama Naidu upon partition of his property, would stand transferred to the subsequent purchasers of the property, and therefore, the defendants who purchased the share of Guru Naidu under Ex. B-1, are also entitled to draw water from the disputed well.

( 7 ) THE appellate Court held that the well is situated in "peda Akumadi". The plaintiff having purchased the same under ex. A-l, and having become owner thereof, is alone entitled to draw the water from the well. There cannot be any criticism of this finding of the appellate Court. Ex. B-l,