Point of law ; If the suit site is bifurcated from the suit well, the plaintiff cannot reach the suit well. The suit site is meant for enjoyment of the well and without the suit site one cannot go to the suit well.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff in O.S.No.9 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Srikalahasti is the appellant in S.A.No.374 of 2000. He was the defendant in O.S.No.2 of 1990 on the file of the same Court and he preferred S.A.No.375 of 2000.

2. O.S.No.9 of 1990 was filed by the appellant to declare his 1/8th share in the suit well as well as the suit site, for removal of different structures over the suit site by means of mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from closing the suit well and the suit site interfering with his 1/8th share therein by making constructions or alterations including storing fertilisers or pesticides etc.

3. The respondent sought permanent injunction in O.S.No.2 of 1990 restraining the appellant from interfering in any manner with the constructions being made by him over the plaint schedule site therein.

4. The parties as arrayed in S.A.No.374 of 2000 shall be referred to hereinafter for convenience.

5. The property concerned to both the suits is one and the same, located in Kothapet area, Srikalahasti town, Chittoor District that included a well and a site measuring east-west - 20 feet, and North-South - 10 feet. The structures raised on this site are also part of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.2 of 1990.

6. By common judgment in both the suits dated 28.11.1996, O.S.No.9 of 1990 was decreed as prayed and O.S.No.2 of 1990 was dismissed. A.S.No.137 of 1996 and A.S.No.135 of 1996 were preferred by the respondent on the file of the Court of the learned V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, where by the decrees and common judgment dated 17.01.2000, that part of the decree granting mandatory injunction in O.S.No.9 of 1990 was set aside, while confirming the permanent injunction granted therein. The decree and judgment in O.S.No.2 of 1990 were reversed granting permanent injunction as requested in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

7. The appellant preferred both these second appeals in these circumstances.

8. The respondent did not prefer cross-appeal or cross objections in respect of the relief maintained by the appellate Court in favour of the appellant relating to grant of permanent injunction. The relief granted by the appellate Court as per the decree in appeal did not in any manner interfere with the declaration granted by the trial Court in favour of the appellant nor any second appeal is preferred there against by the respondent herein.

9. Both these second appeals are heard together and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

10. The appellant and respondent are neighbours. Both of them are traders in fertilisers at Srikalahasti. The premises of the appellant is to the south of the disputed site claimed by the respondent. The disputed well is located in that disputed site. This well is a draw well and was serving as a source of drinking water not only to the parties to these appeals including their predecessors-in-title but also to the entire locality.

11. The case of the appellant is that he had purchased the premises in his occupation under a registered sale deed dated 21.09.1976 from the erstwhile owner Smt. Koneti Meeramma @ Gandla Meenamma for valid consideration including 1/8th share in the disputed well. He further stated that he has been enjoying water from this well using an electric motor. While admitting that the respondent has remaining share in the disputed well and the site, he further stated that with an intention to occupy the disputed site, since it is located adjoining the main road as well as the suit well, the respondent closed it to which he alleged that the respondent did not have right. He further stated that the respondent had put up a sunshade measuring east-west-20 feet and north-south-3 feet on the southern side of the suit well and the suit site highhandedly and he had also constructed RCC slab raising pillars covering this entire site. The appellant