( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-1989 in A. S. No. 193 of 1984 under which the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1981 in O. S. No. 247 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District munsif Court, Yellamanchali decreeing the suit of the plaintiff was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs (appellants) filed O. S. No. 247 of 1980 for declaration that the defendants have no right to take water to their lands from the well. The plaintiffs have been the owners of a plot of land measuring Ac. 3. 70 cents in Survey No. 288 of Rambilli village. During their minority, their maternal uncle as their guardian sold the eastern portion measuring Ac. 2. 10 cents out of the said land of Ac. 3. 70 cents in favour of Jalli Achanna under a registered sale deed dated 30-4-1943. There is a well in the western portion of Ac. 1. 60 cents retained by the plaintiffs which was dug and constructed long back. According to the plaintiffs, they alone have been using the said well for irrigating Ac. 1. 60 cents of land. Their plea is that the purchasers of the eastern land Ac. 2. 10 cents have no right to use the water and they never enjoyed any such right. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiffs, the defendants started claiming right of drawing water from that wall and proclaimed such a right upon which the plaintiffs get issued a registered notice to which the defendants gave a false Reply.

( 4 ) THE defendants in the written statement denied these allegations. They took a plea that the. entire extent of Ac. 3. 70 cents of land is a single block and from times immemorial the entire land is being cultivated from the water from the said well, which is an ancient well situated in the western portion of the land. It is stated that the water is being used by means of bodelu or sub-channels and irrigated crops like chillies, tobacco, sweet potato in the entire land including Ac. 2. 10 cents purchased by the defendants. The defendants predecessor-in-title as well as the defendants have been enjoying the said water continuously and uninterruptedly to an extent of their 4/7th share in the well. The defendants and predecessors-in-title have been raising the crops with the water from the said well. It is stated that the defendants predecessor-in-title Jalli atachanna had acquired 4/7th share in the suit well and in its waters not only as a right (presumably on the basis of sale deed) but also as an easement of necessity and at any rate acquired the said rights by prescreption fey enjoying the same over the statutory period and that they perfected their right to draw water from the well by continuous use since 1943. It is denied that the plaintiffs had exclusive right over the suit well or to its water and they had only 3/7th share in it.

( 5 ) ON these pleadings, appropriate issues have been framed in the trial Court. On behalf f the plaintiffs, P. Ws. 1 to 3 have been examined and Exs. A-1 to A-3 have been marked. On behalf of the defendants. D. Ws. 1 to 4 have been examined and exs. B-1 and 8-2 have been marked.

( 6 ) ON this evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants had not acquired any right to the suit well or any right to draw water from the said well and accordingly granted declaration in favour of the plaintiff that the defendants are not entitled to any such right and decreed the suit.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by this judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal before the ii Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam who held that the defendants had acquired right to draw water from the said well and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

( 8 ) IN this Second appeal, the findings of the learned District Judge are challenged by the appellants-plaintiffs on various grounds. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rajagopala rao