The main legal point established is that in cases of common property, where a partition is not feasible, the Court has the authority to prescribe the method of enjoyment to prevent interference and ensure fair access to the common resource.

Somayy, J.

1. The well shown in the plaint plan was reserved in common between three brothers who divided the rest of their common properties. The properties allotted to each brother was mentioned in a separate schedule and in each schedule we find the following:

The above lands inclusive of trees, etc., together with the right to a third share in the well in S. No. 574.

2. Till the events that gave rise to this suit, there were two picottas on the eastern side of the well and all the co-sharers have been using those picottas or baling-stands for baling out water from the well. The plaintiffs case is that he found some trouble in baling out water at the then existing baling-stands and therefore wanted to construct a baling-stand at the point AB on the southern portion of the common well. The land situated to the south and west of the common well belongs wholly to the plaintiff, and the point AB at which he wanted to erect a common baling-stand is on the southern side of the well. The defendants raised two defences, one is C that being a common well the plaintiff has no right to put ujhas a baling-stand at the point AB. The other is that if the plaintiff is allowed to do so, there will not be enough water for being baled out at all the baling-stands, the two existing ones and the third new one. The trial Court held that if the plaintiff was allowed to erect a baling-stand at the point AB it would interfere with the common right reserved under the partition document and that therefore the plaintiff has no right to erect a baling-stand at the point AB. The suit was accordingly dismissed. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has disposed of it in a very summary manner. He says that the suit should not have been dismissed and that arrangements should be made for a partition of the right as owing to ill-feelings between the parties the existing state of things would not be proper. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that some arrangements by way of turns should have been directed to be made as regards the enjoyment of the water right. Instead of deciding the turns in which the plaintiff and the defendants should enjoy the water right, the Subordinate Judge gave a decree allowing the plaintiff to put up a new picotta subject to the condition that in execution the turns should be fixed by having a Commissioner appointed. This is hardly a satisfactory solution of the trouble. The Subordinate Judge ought to have enquired into the best method of enjoyment by the parties and what exactly the turns were, whether it is one day to each of the three sharers as the defendant deposed in the witness box or a few hours in the morning to one and a few hours later and so on to others on each day, whether during the paddy season a special provision ought not to be made allowing each sharer to take water for a few hours every day and what exactly is the method of enjoyment in the non-paddy season. These are all questions which ought to be decided in the suit itself.

3. Mr. Viswanatha Ayyar, the learned advocate for the appellant, has raised another question that the well being a common well the plaintiff is not entitled to ask the Court to interfere with the present method of enjoying the common property and that a Court of law when appealed to is not entitled to alter the present method of enjoyment even if the Court came to the conclusion that the existing mode of enjoyment is bound to lead to friction and that a better and more convenient method of enjoyment is feasible without any detriment to the defendants.. If this is so, the plaintiff cannot get any relief even if the Court finds that a better method of enjoyment can and ought to be substituted in the interests of all parties concerned. Mr. Viswanatha Ayyar brought to my notice a decision of this Court in amindar of Bethavole v. Satyanarayana Rao Bahadur. There, there was a vagu or jungle stream which the plaintiff alleged ran through his exclusive property. He put up a dam diverting the wat