The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a workable arrangement for both parties to use the common well in a property dispute.

The defendants in O.S.No.47 of 1989 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Attur, who have lost their defence before the trial court and in the first appeal too are before this Court in the second appeal.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.47 of 1989 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Attur, for an order of permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from taking water from the common well in Survey No.208/6 to Survey Numbers 208/3 and 208/9 apart from their lands in Survey Numbers 208/4 and 208/7.

3. The short facts of the plaintiffs case in the plaint runs as follows:

The plaint schedule property belonged to the first plaintiff Krishnan who died pending suit. The predecessors-in-title of the first plaintiff viz., Mukkan had purchased the plaint schedule property from the brother and father of the first defendant on 8. 1951. On the same day, an agreement of sale and a deed of re-sale were also came into existence between the parties. The deed of re-sale was cancelled by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff Mukkan and others as per relinquishment deed dated17. 1985. The first plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 9. 1965 onwards. The second plaintiff is the only son of the first plaintiff. He is assisting the first plaintiff in the administration of the suit properties. The suit property was originally an inam land. After inam abolition, the land was converted into riotwari and in lieu to that resurvey number was assigned and extent was fixed under UDR scheme. The fourth defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The second defendant, third defendant, fifth defendant and sixth defendant are the children of the first defendant. The plaintiffs are having their ancestral lands around the suit land. There was no cordial relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the past seven years. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants are enjoying in common the motor pumpset installed in Survey Number 208/6 measuring 0.05.0 hectares. The water from the common well can be used for the purpose of irrigation of the lands bearing survey numbers 208/4,5,7 and 8 alone. The defendants have purchased survey numbers 208/3, and 208/9 without irrigation facility(without common well). Both of them are punja lands. The lands belonging to the plaintiffs are situated in close promixity to the common well. The common well yields soft water. When the defendants approached to take water from the common well to irrigate their nearby lands in Survey numbers 208/3 and 208/9 the same was rejected by the plaintiffs. The defendants are now making arrangements to amalgamate the lands in survey numbers 208/3 and 208/9 to form a single paddy field. But they cannot take water from the common well in Survey numbers 208/3 to the newly formed paddy field. Since the plaintiffs have objected to the defendants for taking water from the common well to their paddy fields, the defendants have developed a grudge against the plaintiffs, thereafter they began to reduce the width of the cart track leading to the plaintiffs well. To show the lie of the properties, the plaintiffs have produced a rough sketch along with the plaint. The plaintiffs had issued a notice on 20.9.1988 for which the defendants have sent a reply notice on 29. 1988 . In the reply notice, the first defendant has admitted that he is not entitled to take water to the lands he had purchased subsequently. But he has denied that his old survey number, land was inducted with the new survey number land. The defendants have further denied the right of the plaintiffs over the common cart track and also in the motor pumpset. The matter was referred to the panchayatars who have directed the parties to approach the Court.

4. The second defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant which reads as follows:

The plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property. It is not correct to say that t