Sale would convey right in suit well only to extent of share.

1. The defendants in O.S.No.211 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of several items of properties. We are only concerned with S.No.210/1-A and S.No.210/3-A in Arunagirimangalam village, Kalasapakkam Sub District in North Arcot District.

2. The case of the respondent was that he purchased the several items in the suit from their owners Vinayagamurthy and Santhanam under Ex.A-1 dated 2.8.1980 and Ex.A-2 dated 16.9.1980. The purchase by him included 3/4th right in the well in S.No.210/1-A. He had originally owned 1/4th share in the well and after the purchase by him now he became entitled to the entirety of the well in S.No.210/1-A and notwithstanding the fact that the appellants knew about his purchase, they colluded with Vinayagamurthy, one of the vendors of the respondent, and created an antedated document and on the strength of that document, they attempted to interfere with the respondents possession and enjoyment and the suit was therefore necessitated for the reliefs already mentioned.

3. The appellants resisted the suit contending inter alia that the fourth appellant became entitled to the right in the share in the suit well in S.No.210/1-A and by virtue of his purchase from Vinayagamurthy under Ex.B-1 dated 17.6.1980, that it was not an antedated document and the respondent was not entitled to any relief.

4. The learned District Munsif framed the necessary issues and on the pleadings and on the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the case of the respondent that he became absolutely entitled to the suit well by virtue of his purchase and by virtue of his prior title, that the sale deed Ex.B-1 was antedated and that the respondent was entitled to the reliefs prayed for. This decision of the trial Court was confirmed in A.S.No.16 of 1986 filed by the appellants, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, on 5.2.1987. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed.

5. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were raised for decision in the second appeal:

(1) Whether the court below ought not to have held that Ex.B-1 which is a sale deed dated 17.6.1980 in favour of the appellants, will prevail over Exs.A-1 and A-2 and dated 2.8.1980 and 16.9.1980 respectively, although it was registered on 4.10.1980 by virtue of Sec.47 of Indian Registration Act.

(2) Whether the courts below have not failed to interpret correctly and properly that Ex.B-1 would include the right of irrigation from the suit well in S.No.210/1-A as per provisions of Sec.8 of Easements Act read with Sec.19 thereon and the right of irrigation passes as easement of necessity or by implication under law.

(3) Whether the courts below have not erred in holding that the respondent is entitled to injunction as against appellants herein, even in the absence of proof of any damage or hardship or inconvenience suffered by him in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munuswamy Gounder, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1789.

(4) Whether the conclusion and finding of the courts below that Ex.B-1 is an antedated document is not perverse and suffers from grave irregularity and illegality that there is no evidence on records to justify such findings.

6. So far as substantial questions 1 and 4 are concerned, the courts below have as a question of fact on the materials available, held that Ex.B-1 is an antedated document and it is not possible to interfere and take a different view. Therefore, questions 1 and 4 are answered against the appellants.

7. However, with regard to the rights in the well arguments have been advanced as to whether under the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the entire 3/8th right in the sell purported to have been sold would pass to the plaintiff/respondent notwithstanding that the entire extent in the said survey number had not been sold. Out