Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The facts are a little complicated. Though the decision of this second appeal ultimately depends upon our opinion on a pure question of law, it is necessary to state the material facts for clearly dining the legal question.

2. The plaintiff and the defendants are neighbours, the plan Exhibit III showing their respective houses and house sites. Roughly we might say that the plaintiffs house and his vacant site are west and north of the defendants house and backyard site.

3. In the plaintiffs vacant site (north of defendants house and west of the defendants back yard) there is situated a well marked A which well is common to both the plaintiff and the defendants. In 1905 the plaintiff tried to enclose the well by walls so as to give the defendants access only to the southeastern half of the circumference of the wall (and not to the remaining north-western half) from the defendants back door (in the northern wall of the defendants house) situated to the south-east of the well. The defendants then obstructed the plaintiff and the plaintiff brought the suit O.S. No. 425 of 1905, for an injunction against the defendants