Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in the suit, O.S. 1642/74 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, who had been unsuccessful in both the Courts in respect of his claim to take water from a well newly dug by him in his land through a channel common to both himself and the respondents ( sic ) 1 s the appellant in S.A. 245/79. S.A. 933/80 is filed by the defendants in O.S. 1699/74 against whom a declaration and injunction was granted in both the Courts in respect of an extent of 9 cents mentioned as Schedule C to the plaint. Since the parties are the same, both the proceedings were heard together by the lower courts and the same procedure is adopted in this Court also. 2. Certain facts will have to be stated before proceeding to analyse the points of law that are involved in both these appeals. R. Kulasekara Alwar, the appellant in S.A. 245/79 and the first appellant in S.A. 933/80, is the son of Ramakrishnama Naidu, mentioned as Ramakrishnayya in the suit O.S. 1699/74. R. Ramakrishnama Naidu and his sons K. Rajendran and R. Kulasekara Alwar who was a minor at that time, divided their family properties by means of a partition deed, the registration copy of which is mark ed as Ex. A6 According to the said partition, aport from other properties, an extent of 1.59 acres out of 3.19 acres in Survey No. 423 and the western half share of 69 cents in Survey No. 424/1 were allotted to the share of the said Kulasekara Alwar with a half share in the well in Survey No. 424/1 (wrongly mentioned as Survey No. 423 in the partition deed). As per the partition deed, Kulasekara Alwar is entitled to irrigate the above said two survey numbers from his half right in the well in Survey No . 424/1. The second respondent in S.A. 245/79, namely, J. Narayanasami Naidu, purchased the other half share in the above said two survey numbers by means of a sale deed, Ex. B5, dated 16th May 1967 from Rangasami Naidu and his sons who previously owned the other half share. According to Ex. B5, the said Narayanasami is entitled to an extent of 16 cents in Survey No. 426/1 and 18 cents in Survey No. 424/2 with half right in the well in survey No. 424/1 and a common channel. B5, dated 16th May 1967 from Rangasami Naidu and his sons who previously owned the other half share. According to Ex. B5, the said Narayanasami is entitled to an extent of 16 cents in Survey No. 426/1 and 18 cents in Survey No. 424/2 with half right in the well in survey No. 424/1 and a common channel. The portion belonging to Kulasekara Alwar is shown in red colour and the portion belonging to Narayanasami is shown in green colour in the plan, Ex. A7 and in the Commissioners plan, Ex. C. 2, also the same colouring is adopted. The appellant, Kulasekara Alwar had been taking water from the common well in Survey No. 424/1 to the western portion of Survey No. 424/1 belonging to him by means of a channel running along the southern and western portions of the well and along the noitnern portion of Survey No. 424/1 which is a common channel for both Kulasekara Alwar and J Narayanasami to irrigate their respective portions. It is the admitted case that the well in survey No. 424/1 is dried up and both the sharers are not using the same. J. Narayanasami seems to have dug up a new well in Sumy No. 424/2 and had been irrigating his portion in Survey Nos. 424/1 and 423 owned by him by means of a pipeline. Kulasekara Alwar, the appellant herein seems to have dug a well in Survey No. 428/2, south of his portion in Survey No. 424/1 and Paznamalai Road and his case is that he had been irrigating from the new well in Survey No. 428/2 his portion in Survey No. 424/1 and survey No. 413 through the channel which is common to both Kulasekara Alwar and J. Narayansami. The said Kulasekara Alwir filed O.S. 1642/74 alleging that J. Narayanasami and his father unlawfully obtraoted him from taking water and prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to do so and for a consequential injunction restraining the said Narayanasami from taking water from the well in Survey No. 428/2 to the above said two survsy numbers along the common channel in respect of which S.A. 245/79 is filed. 3. 3. J. Narayanasami in his turn filed another suit O.S. 1699/74 against the appellant in S.A. 245/79 and his father, for a declaration that he is the owner of 9 cents formiig the southern portion of Survey No. 423 mentioned as C Schedule to the plaint in O.S. 1699/74. According to J. Narayanasami, his possession of the said 9 cents is threatened by the said Kulasekara Alwar and his father. 4 . In so far as the common channel isconcerned, both the Courts below, after affirming the rights of Kulasekara Alwar to the common channel, negatived his claim to take wa er from the well in Survey No. 428/2 newly dug by the said Kulasekara Aiwar to the above said two survey numbers on the ground that it will amount to casting an additional burden on the right of easement to which Kulasekara Alwar is entitled to In this second appeal, Mr Sivaji, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in as much as J. Narayanasami had been taking water through a pips line and is not using the common channel no prejudice will be caused to him by the appellant, Kulasekara Alwar, taking water from Survey No. 428/2 to irrigate his portion in Survey Nos. 424/1 and 423 through the common channel and both the courts below erred in negativing his claim for such a right. He also relied upon the case reported in Subbiah v. Ramaswamy 1, where Palaniswamy, J., held as follows: “Each of the co-owners of the common property is entitled to use the property in the way most advantageous and beneficial to him without at the same time causing any injury or detriment to the other co-owners. It is for such a co-owner to decide in what way he could so use the common property to his maximum advantage. It is not for the other co-owners to dictate in what manner the other co-owner should enjoy the common property so long as the user of the common property by one co-owner does not materially interfere with the use of the property by the other co-owners or affect their rights, or in any way weaken, damage or injures the common property. Such co-owners are not entitled to prevent the other co-owner from using the common property in the way most beneficial to him”. Such co-owners are not entitled to prevent the other co-owner from using the common property in the way most beneficial to him”. Relying on this observation, it is contended on behalf of Kulasekara Alwar, the appellant in S.A. 245/79, that he is entitled to take water through the common channel without detriment to the other co-owner. In the case in which the above judgment was rendered, there was a common well which was enjoyed by two co sharers in turns and one of the co-sharers dug a new well in his exclusive land and attempted to take water through the common channel, and Palaniswamy, J. Game to the conclusion that there cannot be any objection to the co sharers taking water to his portion of the land from the well newly dug during the period of turn in which the said co-sharer is entitled to use the channel. There it was possible to take water from the newly dug well through the common channel to irrigate the land of the co-sharer during his turn. But, in this case, there is no turn system in force. Further, according to the evidence in this case, the well is at a higher level and the level of the land is sloping towards west from east, and hence the well forms the highest portion from which water flows from east to west through the common channel to irrigate the shares of both the co-sharers. Taking into consideration the lie of the land, it is not possible for Kulasekara Alwar to take water from the well in Survey No. 428/2 through the common channel without digging the channel and altering the level or by installing a pipe line. That will amount to casting an additional burden to the easement right to which the said Kulasekara Alwar is entitled to. Hence, the facts of the present case differ from the facts of the above case and the principles laid down by Palaniswamy, J. cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 5. Mr. That will amount to casting an additional burden to the easement right to which the said Kulasekara Alwar is entitled to. Hence, the facts of the present case differ from the facts of the above case and the principles laid down by Palaniswamy, J. cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 5. Mr. Sivaji also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ayyasami Gounder v. Munuswamy Gounder 1 where the Supreme Court observed as follows: “In the aosence of any specific pleading regarding prejudice or detriment to the defendants-respondents, the plaintiffs have every right to use the common land and the common channel.” That was a case where the dispute related to a channel over a piece of land in which the ownership of the land vested in both the parties. But, here the above said Kulasekara Alwar is having only a right or easement over the land of J. Narayanasami and as such the principles laid down in the Supreme Court judgment are not applicable to the present case. 6. However, the said Kulasekara Alwar is entitled to take water from his well in Survey No. 428/2 upto the channel running in the land of J. Narayanasami, as the channel running on the western portion and the northern portion of survey No. 424/1 is in the exclusive use of Kulasekara Alwar to irrigate his share in Survey No. 424/1. The lower court to ought have made a distinction between the channel in exclusive use of R. Kulasekara Alwar and the portion of the channel in which R. Kulasekara Alwar as well as J. Narayanasami are entitled to irrigate and the lower court erred in negativing the claim of Kulasekara Alwar to irrigate Survey No. 424/1 by taking water from the well in Survey No. 428/2 through the channel on the western and northern portion of the land exclusively belonging to R. Kulasekara Alwar upto the point where the common channel of both commences. In the result the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S. 17/77 is modified as follows:— 1. Rejection of claim of Kulasekara Alwar to take water through the common channel in the northern portion of Survey No. 424/1 belonging to J. Narayanasami to irrigate Survey No. 423 (Part) belonging to Kulasekara Alwar is confirmed; 2. In the result the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S. 17/77 is modified as follows:— 1. Rejection of claim of Kulasekara Alwar to take water through the common channel in the northern portion of Survey No. 424/1 belonging to J. Narayanasami to irrigate Survey No. 423 (Part) belonging to Kulasekara Alwar is confirmed; 2. It is made clear that R. Kulasekara Alwar is entitled to take water from Survey No. 418/2 along the channel running on the western and northern portion of survey No. 424/1 belonging to him, to irrigate Survey No. 424/1. 7. In so far as the dispute relating to 9 cents of land mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint in O.S. 1699/74 is concerned, both the courts below negatived the claim of R. Kulasekara Alwar to the said extent on the ground that the partition deeds, Exs. A5 and A6, and the earlier documents, do not support his claim to the said 9 cents The contention of the appellant is that when the properties were divided between the co-sharers in the past, this extent of 9 cents was given to compensate the taram in respect of the soil, but such an arrangement has not been mentioned in the above said documents. Taking into consideration the recitals in the documents, both the courts below are right in negativing the claim of R. Kulasekara Alwar to the above said 9 cents shown as C schedule to the plaint in O.S. 1699/74. 8. In the result, second appeal No. 245/79 is allowed in part and there will be declaration declaring the appellants right to take water from the well in Survey No. 428/2 to his portion in Survey No. 424/1 through the channel running on the western and northern portion of the land belonging to R. Kulasekara Alwar. The conclusion arrived at by both the courts below that R. Kulasekara Alwar is not entitled to take water from the well in Survey No. 428/2 though the common channel in the northern portion of Survey No. 424/1 belonging to J. Narayanasami is hereby confirmed and the claim of the appellant is this regard is negatived. Second appeal No. 933/80 is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals.