Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 passed in A.S.No.10 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional District Court, Pondicherry, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1995 passed in O.S.No.32 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mahe.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaint “A” schedule property was obtained by the plaintiff's father as per the assignment deed dated 09.03.1988 and on the same date, the defendant had also taken a small plot situated to the East of the plaint “A” schedule property shown as the plaint “B” schedule property and the plaintiff's father and the defendant's husband were good friends and accordingly, they made arrangement to purchase the adjacent plots and construct houses in plots belonging to them. It was also agreed between them to dig a common Well covering both plots, since the area in possession is very small and the larger area of the Well is located in “B” schedule property and the smaller area of the Well is located in “A” schedule property and the Well was dug in common with the funds contributed by the plaintiff's father as well as the defendant and an undertaking was entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendant with regard to the digging of the common Well and accordingly, the plaintiff's father, while putting up construction in his property i.e. “A” schedule property, submitted the plan shown the well as common in the plan and accordingly, the permission was given to him by Mahe Planning Authority and the Well was dug in 1988 and the defendant has also put up construction in her property and due to financial difficulty, the plaintiff's father was unable to proceed with the construction of his house and subsequently, on 21.10.1991, he gifted the plaint “A” schedule property to his daughter viz., the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has to apply for fresh permission and plan for putting up house construction and the same was granted on 17.09.1992 and accordingly, while doing preliminary work for the construction, the plaintiff's men were drawing water from the common Well and at that time, the defendant obstructed them claiming that the Well belongs to her absolutely and the defendant, without any consultation or permission from the plaintiff, constructed a wall across the Well in the plot of the plaintiff to obstruct the plaintiff from taking water from the Well and thereby, prevented the plaintiff from drawing water from the Well, which belongs to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has no right to prevent the plaintiff from using the Well as the said Well was dug in common as above stated and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the plaint “A” schedule property was originally purchased by the plaintiff's father and it is also true that on the same date, the defendant had purchased the “B” schedule property described in the plaint and it is also true that the plaintiff's father and the defendant's husband were close friends and however, it has not been agreed that the Well should be dug in common covering both plots and it is denied that a smaller portion of the Well area is situated in the plaint “A” schedule property belonging to the plaintiff, in fact, the entire Well is situated in the plaint “B” schedule property belonging to the defendant and the entire amount for digging of the Well was met by the defendant and no fund was contributed by the plaintiff's father for digging the Well as claimed in the plaint. The defendant is not aware of any undertaking said to have been entered into between the plaintiff's father and the defendant, regarding the digging of the Well and the defendant had signed three white papers, wherein, her name alone was typed, which were brough