J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 2014 as against the concurrent findings of the courts below.

2. This appellant has filed the above suit in O.S.No.283 of 2014 for the relief of declaration that the appellant is having a right to draw water from the well, borewell and pumpset situated in 'B' schedule property. He also sought for an injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing this appellant from drawing water from 'B' schedule property to 'A' schedule property and for a declaration to declare that he is having a right of way over 'C' schedule property to reach 'D' schedule property and also for a injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his right of way.

3. The suit was dismissed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil by its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2018 and the First Appeal preferred by this appellant before the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil in A.S.No.19 of 2018 was also dismissed by its judgment and decree dated 02.11.2018 and as against the concurrent findings, the present Second Appeal is filed.

4. In this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised:

i) Whether the courts below are correct in law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit when it is clearly proved that the properties in schedule A and B were previously lie as single unit and though the well and pumpset in B schedule water drawn to the coconut trees in A schedule and the plaintiff is having right even after the segregation under Section 13 of the Indian Eastment Act?

ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in denying the easement right claimed by the plaintiff being the dominant easement from the servient tenement when such right of plaintiff is protected under Section 13 of the Easement Act?

iii) Whether the courts below are correct in law in denying the right of drawing water from the B schedule through the C schedule finding that the 'A' schedule already had a borewell and such right does not exist?

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit schedule property consist of 3 schedules in Sy.No.83/10 of Agastheeswaram Village, which are described as 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedules. 'A' schedule is measuring 31.247 cents and 'B' schedule is measuring 41.241 cents and 'C' schedule is measuring about length of 244 links and width of 9 links pathway. By way of a settlement deed dated 06.05.2014, 'A' schedule property was given to the share of the appellant and even before the execution of settlement deed dated 06.05.2014, 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were enjoyed jointly. The coconut trees standing in 'A' schedule properties were irrigated through the well in 'B' schedule property. 'C' schedule property is pathway from 'A' schedule property to 'B' schedule property. Though by settlement deed dated 06.05.2014 the land in 'A' schedule property alone was given to him, he is having a easementary right as a dominant tenement to utilize water from 'B' schedule property to irrigate his coconut trees in 'A' schedule property. He is also having an eastment of necessity.

6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and carefully perused the materials placed on record.

7. This appellant/plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and the brother of the second defendant. By way of a settlement deed dated 06.05.2014(Ext.A.1). 'A' schedule property was given to this appellant/ plaintiff. The appellant claims that there are grown-up coconut tress in 'A' schedule property and those trees were irrigated only through the source of water from the well and pumpset in 'B' schedule property. Since 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties were used previously jointly even after the segregation of property by way of settlement, he is entitled for the eastmentary right as a dominant tenant.

8. The trial court and the First Appellate Court have rejected the plea of