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 attempted obstruction to the construction of the walls. The plaintiffs allegations in the plaint in that suit were (a) that the whole vacant site (within and near the south eastern corner of which the Well was situated and including the said well site) belonged to the plaintiff, (b) that the defendants had only the right of easement of taking the water from the well and (c) that as the owner of the servient tenement, the plaintiff was entitled to put up walls in his own site leaving a convenient way to the defendants to approach the well from their backyard door (south-east of the well) to the south-eastern half portion of the circumference of the well.

4. The defendants contended in that suit that the whole vacant site itself including the site of the well belonged to themselves as part of their house. The District Munsif found in that suit that the site did not belong to the Plaintiff but to the defendants, and so dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge was inclined to differ from the District Munsif on the question of title to the vacant site in which the well stood, but he held that the well itself belonged to both parties and hence that " convenience and mutual relations between neighbours" dictated that the plaintiffs suit for an injunction should be dismissed and he therefore confirmed the District Munsifs decree. On Second Appeal, this Court made the following observations in its judgment:

The District Munsif found that the site did not belong to the plaintiffs and so dismissed the suit. The District Judge has not stated any finding on the question of ownership and though he states his opinion that the defendants access to the site cannot be obstructed, he does not state any finding as to the legal character of the defendants right." Then, directions were issued to the District Judge to send up findings on the following issues:

(1) Does the site in question belong to the plaintiffs or to the defendants and have the plaintiffs a right to build a wall as alleged in the plaint?

(2) Whether the defendants have any right in the site in question, so as to entitle them to prevent the plaintiffs from building the wall?

5. The District Judges findings (in substance) were as follows: (a) that the vacant site except the site of the well itself belonged to the plaintiff; (b) that the well and its site belonged in common to both parties; (c) that the defendants contention that even if they had no ownership right in the surrounding vacant site, they had an easement of right of way, not only from their house (to the south-east) to the whole circumference of the well but also another easement of way along a lane running south to north along the western boundary of the vacant site had not been established, they not having used any such way as of right,