JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J.:---This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji, dated 4th February, 1987 in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1972 which has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The late Francisco Souza who was the husband of the respondent No. 1 and predecessor of the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 filed a suit against the original defendant Maria Lobo and her husband who are predecessors-in-title of the appellant No. 1 Celine and respondent No. 10 onwards. The appellant No. 2 is the husband of the late Maria Lobo and also the original defendant No. 2 in the suit. The litigation is in respect of two neighbouring properties situated at Mapusa. Both the parties claim to be the owners of these adjoining properties being one claimed by the plaintiffs known as "Onsabhat" or "Ambeachem Batulem". The plaintiffs have got their house situated in their property. This property was described in the plan as being registered in the Land Registration Office under No. 14667 in Book No. 36. It was stated by the plaintiffs that on the south-west of their property lies the property of the defendants who have also their residential house in their property. In between the appellants' house and the respondents' house there is a strip of land about 1.60 metres in width and 1.40 metres in length which is common between the appellants and the respondents. To the extreme east of the same strip there is a well and the water of that well is being used by both the parties and for the purpose of drawing water from the well the respondents are having a window to their kitchen and the appellants also have their window to their kitchen. The well has a quadrangular shape. The northen and southern faces of the well correspond to the southern wall of the respondent's house and the northen wall of the appellants' house respectively. On the north-west corner the well has some steps for access to the interior of the well and these steps are found on the northern face and western face of the well. On the extreme west of the suit strip there is a wall and the same has a door which permits the access to the said strip from the western side. The respondents have an access to the same strip through the door which is more or less on the north-west corner of the strip and this door gives access to the strip from the verandah of the respondents' house. On the top of the verandah on the first floor there is a gallery which is open towards the west as well as towards the south, i.e. towards the side of the suit strip and the appellants are having access to the said strip through a door which exists on the northern wall of their kitchen and which stands more or less at the middle of the strip. The appellants are having a window facing the suit strip which is near the gate of the respondents. The cavesdrop of the appellants' house as well as that of the respondents' house are falling in the suit strip. The appellants have also a storey and in the said storeyed portion there are two windows which are facing the suit strip and are having shades for the last about one year. The southern side of the gallery is also having a shade at least for the last about 35 years. The rainy waters accumulated in the suit strip from the roof of the appellants' and the respondents' house have their way out through an outlet existing underneath the said gate and more precisely on the north-west corner of the suit strip and the outlet is through the compound of the appellants' house. The appellants and the respondents are in common enjoyment of the said strip as well as the well without disturbance or objection from anybody for the last about at least more than 35 years.

3. According to the respondents (original plaintiffs in the suit) the cause of action for the suit is the fact of the appellants (original defendants in the suit) havi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document