The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence and legal documentation in property disputes, emphasizing the principles of ownership rights and the legal implications of conveyance through a sale deed.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2003, passed in A.S. No. 22 of 2002, on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2001, passed in O.S. No. 81 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi.

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

3. Suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the first defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the son in law of the first defendant and the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 effected partition of their properties by way of a deed of partition dated 15.05.1985 and accordingly, the sharers had been enjoying their respective shares and there is one well situated in R.S. No. 331/10, Kangam village, Erode. It is the suit well in which there is one 5 H.P. electric motor and pump-set installed with service connection No. 289 which was obtained in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1984. Under the above said partition deed, the plaintiff and the first defendant were allotted half share in the suit well and the second defendant was not allotted any share. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the first defendant had been bailing water from the suit well through turn system of three days out of every six days and irrigating their respective lands. While so, inasmuch as the first defendant unlawfully objected to the plaintiff using the motor room which happened to be located in the share of the first defendant, misunderstanding arose between the parties and the first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 449/96 against the plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction as regards his half share in the suit electric motor and pump-set and his right to bail water as per his turn and during the pendency of the suit, a panchayat was held between the parties and accordingly, the plaintiff along with his son agreed to convey half share in the suit electric motor and pump-set in favour of the first defendant and accordingly, conveyed the same under the registered sale deed dated 29.4.1997 and it was agreed that the plaintiff and his son may apply for a separate service connection for installing a motor connection in the suit well for bailing water as per the partition and it is agreed that the suit in O.S. No. 449 of 1996 should be withdrawn by the first defendant. However, as the plaintiff was informed that obtaining separate service connection may take time, the plaintiff installed 6 H.P. oil engine and pump-set in the suit well and bailing water for irrigating his lands and during power cut seasons, the defendant was unable to irrigate his lands and accordingly, picked up quarrel with the plaintiff and again a panchayat was held between the parties and it was agreed in the said panchayat that the parties should revert back to their original position viz. the sale deed dated 29.4.1997 should be cancelled and that each party should bail out water according to their turns from the common well using the motor pump-set and service connection and as the cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.04.1997 would incur heavy expenses and as the first defendant had not withdrawn the suit in O.S. No. 449 of 1996, accordingly, it was agreed that the first defendant should give evidence in the said suit as regards his entitlement of half share in the suit well electric motor and pump-set and obtain the decree and thereby, each party would be declared to be entitled to half share in the suit property and accordingly, the first defendant tendered evidence in the said suit admitting the half share of the plaintiff in the suit property and since then, the parties had been irrigating their respective lands from bailing out water from the suit well during their turns and the defendants 1 and 2 unlawfully laid another underground pipeline for irri