JUDGMENT: By consent of counsel appearing on either side, the second appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. The defendant in O.S. No.951 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Gingee is the first appellant herein. pending second appeal, the first appellant died and appellants 2 to 6 - his legal heirs were brought on record. 3. The respondent herein filed the said suit for a declaration of title in respect of the suit channel, for permanent injunction restraining the first appellant from interfering with his enjoyment and right to take water through the disputed suit channel and for mandatory injunction for removal of the obstruction. 4. The first appellant herein, who is none other than the brother of the respondent herein, disputed the exclusive claim of the respondent and contended that originally, the entire property belongs to their father and subsequent to partition, the brothers are enjoying their respective shares separately. The first appellant has no other source of irrigation except the suit channel and as such, he is entitled to take water. 5. The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence available on record, found that the sale deed in favour of the respondent do not convey any right of irrigation through the suit channel and as such, it is not open to the respondent to claim exclusive title. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.3.1981. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondent preferred an appeal in A.S. No.84 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tindivanam. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the said judgment and decree of the trial Court finding that the property originally belonged to the father of the first appellant and respondent herein. Even through no specific recital was mentioned in respect of the exclusive right of the respondent regarding the suit channel, the channel goes with the land. When, admittedly, the respondent is the owner of the land, there cannot be any other owner so far as the portion of the channel situated within the land of the respondent is concerned. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondent is entitled for the exclusive title of the suit channel and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal. 7. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondent is entitled for the exclusive title of the suit channel and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal. 7. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated: “Whether the lower appellate Court was right in the view it took that it is an inflexible rule that a well and the rights in a channel always go together and therefore the appellant is not entitled to the use of the channel?” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the lands were under common ownership originally, the irrigation facility was made only through the suit channel. As there is no separate channel for the first appellant to take water either from the common well or from the exclusive well of the first appellant, if has to be taken that the suit channel to have the irrigation facility for his lands. In the absence of such plea, the respondent herein cannot have any exclusive title over the suit channel and it should be treated as common to both the first appellant and the respondent and some arrangement has to be made with regard to taking of water through the channel by fixing a time limit. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that when the suit channel is situated in the lands of the respondent, it is not open to the first appellant to claim any right in the same. As the lower appellate Court held that the channel goes with the land and as such, the respondent is the exclusive owner of the suit channel, there is no need for any interference from the findings of the lower appellate Court. 10. I have carefully considered the above contentions of both the learned counsel. 11. There is no dispute that the suit channel lies in the survey numbers of the lands belonging to both the parties. The question for consideration is as to whether it is open to the respondent to claim exclusive title in respect of the suit channel, when the suit land belonged originally to the father of the parties to the proceedings and the parties leaving common irrigation facility through the suit channel. In my view, it cannot be. The question for consideration is as to whether it is open to the respondent to claim exclusive title in respect of the suit channel, when the suit land belonged originally to the father of the parties to the proceedings and the parties leaving common irrigation facility through the suit channel. In my view, it cannot be. When once the ancestor being the common owner and the property is being divided among the legal heirs, at a later point of time, each legal representative or cosharer will take their share along with the easementary right of pathway, cart tract, irrigation facility and water right, etc. 12. In this case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no plea from the respondent that the first appellant has got any other channel as a source of irrigation facility for his land. In the absence of such plea, it goes without saying that the source of irrigation facility for the first appellant’s land is only through the suit channel. Even assuming that the suit channel goes wit the land, and the respondent becomes the owner, it is not the case of the respondent that the entire suit channel is situated within his land. Admittedly, a portion of the suit channel passes through the first appellant’s land also. When that be so, it is not known as to how the respondent can claim exclusive right over the extent of the land in which the suit channel passes through the first appellant’s land. If all these materials are taken into consideration to decide the issue, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the suit channel must be treated as a common one conferring both the parties to have the irrigation facility from their respective well. Hence, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court conferring exclusive right on the respondent cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court in the suit are restored. No costs.