The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific pleading and evidence to establish easementary rights, the burden of proof in establishing such rights, and the court's reliance on evidence of long-standing use to determine the plaintiffs' rights.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. As the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No. 372 of 2009 is filed by the appellant/1st defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 made in A.S.No. 1 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, dismissing the Appeal filed by the appellant and 7th respondent/2nd defendant by confirming the decree and judgment dated 24.11.2004 made in A.S.No. 451 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali directing the plaintiffs declaring that ABCD channel is a joint channel from AD point and till Northern point towards BC side and upto the Northern boundary of the land of 1st plaintiff comprising in D.No. 332/2 as shown in the plaint plan and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from using the ABCD channel upto point located abutting the Northern boundary of the land of the 1st plaintiff in D No. 332/2 as shown in the plaint plan and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from using the ABCD channel upto point located abutting the Northern boundary of the land of the 1st plaintiff in D.No. 332/2.

3. Originally the suit in O.S No. 451 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that they are having right to take water through ABCD A1 A2 X1 X2 and E F G A2 channel for irrigating their lands from the bore-well as well as the canal shown in the plaint plan and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to use and take water through the said channels which are situated to the east of the plaintiffs and defendants land.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the suit in O.S.No. 451 of 2001.

5. The 2nd defendant is the nephew of the 1st defendant. Items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property belong to the plaintiff. Item 3 belongs to the 2nd defendant. There were disputes between the plaintiffs and defendants from the past few years. The defendants filed O.S No. 165 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tenali for declaration of their right in the cart track and for injunction. The said suit was dismissed. The channels ABCD and EFG A2 have been in existence since times immemorial. The plaintiffs and defendants have been using the said channels to irrigate their lands. As the defendants have causing obstruction, the plaintiffs preferred suit in O.S.No. 451 of 2001.

6. The 1st defendant has filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiffs have not shown the 4 ½ cents in D.No. 329/2 and 3½ cents in D No. 333/10 belonging to the 1st defendant. The channels ADA1A2 and A2EFG channel are common channels for irrigating the plots P1P2 and D2. The plaintiffs and defendants have got joint rights in half of the well and the remaining half belongs to the 1st defendant and his sister Nageswarmma the mother of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs are not entitled to take water from a different source through the subject channels without the consent of the defendants. The plaintiffs being dominant owners must exercise their rights in the channel causing less onerous to the defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have no right to alter the mode of enjoyment. It is also stated that the cart track will also be submerged if excess water is drawn. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration having right of water through ABCD A A2 X1 X2 and EFG A2 channel for irrigation of land?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?

(3) To what relief.

8. On behalf of the plaintiffs/ PW.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and on behalf of the defendants, DW.1 to DW3 were e