JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiffs are brothers. The 1st Defendant and the

2nd defendant are brothers and the 3rd defendant is a co-sharer in the property. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing or interfering with their right in taking water from the well to their agricultural lands.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that old survey No.380 (New S.F No.90) had a total extent of 4.37 acres. According to the plaintiffs, 2.16 acres on the southern side belongs to the 1st and 2nd defendants and 1.07 acres on the northern side belongs to the plaintiffs. An extent of 1.14 acres, which is the middle portion belongs to the 3rd defendant. The further case of the plaintiffs is that there is a common well situated in the southern portion belonging to the defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share in the common well and they have fitted a 5 HP Electric Motor and pump to the well and they are drawing water from the said well to irrigate their lands. It is further stated that out of 8 days, the plaintiffs have the right of taking water from the common well for two days, the 1st and 2nd defendants have the right to take water for 3 ½ days and the 3rd defendant has the right to take water for the remaining 2 ½ days. This was followed for a long number of years and all the parties were accordingly irrigating their agricultural lands from the common well.

4. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the defendants 1 and 2 started claiming exclusive right over the common well and prevented the plaintiff from drawing water from well to irrigate their lands. Hence, left with no other option, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for the relief of bare injunction.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement and admitted the properties that are enjoyed by the plaintiffs, the 1st and 2nd defendants and the 3rd defendant and the extent as stated by the plaintiffs. The only point of disagreement for the defendants 1 and 2 is that the plaintiffs do not have any right to draw water from the well and they denied that the plaintiffs had any share in the well. According to these defendants, the plaintiffs were never allowed to irrigate their agricultural lands from the suit well and hence, they sought for the dismissal of the suit. The 3rd defendant never contested the suit and he remained exparte. 6. Both the Courts below concurrently held against the plaintiffs and found that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for by them. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present second appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the defendants 1 and 2 have clearly admitted the manner in which the lands are put to use and the existence of the channel between points A and B. Once such an admission is made, that prima facie establishes the right claimed by the plaintiff who uses the water drawn from the suit well to irrigate his agricultural lands. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon Ex.C1 to C4 and the Exhibit X series to explain the physical features and also the continuous usage of the water from the suit well to irrigate the lands belonging to the plaintiffs. The learned counsel further submitted that the EB service connection stood in the name of Karuppanna Gounder, who is the father of the plaintiffs and that by itself shows that the plaintiffs have been using the suit well and drawing water from the same through motor and irrigating their agricultural lands. The learned counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the usage of water from the suit well has been substantially proved before the Courts below and the same was not taken into consideration by both the Courts below which warrants the interference of this Court in this second appeal. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the