ORDER A.M. Naik, J. -- 1. Short facts leading to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners have instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, mainly with the averments that they were Bhumi-Swami and occupants of the land comprised in survey Nos. 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225 and 1226 in area 3.53 hectares, situated at village Bhonti, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri. Out of the aforesaid, plaintiffs sold undivided one-third i.e. 1.17 hectares, vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.2005 to defendants No. 1 and 2. 2. Case of the plaintiffs is that a well comprised in survey No. 1224 was not sold by them and no consideration in respect of the same was received by them. Partition was effected after the aforesaid sale between the plaintiffs and defendants-respondent No. 1 and 2 on 20.2.20 10. Defendants No. 1 and 2 asserted, one-third share in the said well. Thereafter, the suit giving rise to the present petition has been instituted with a prayer that it may be declared that the well situated in survey No. 1224 is owned and occupied by the plaintiffs alone. They further prayed that defendants No. 1 and 2 shall not cause obstruction in the plaintiff's title and possession over the disputed well. 3. Plaintiffs, simultaneously, submitted an application for temporary injunction for restraining defendants-respondents No. 1 and 2 from causing obstruction in the plaintiffs possession over the disputed well. 4. Defendants No. I and 2 submitted their reply to the application for temporary injunction. According to them, they have purchased one-third undivided share in the land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers, which includes survey Nos. 1224. Thus, they have acquired title, as well as possession to the extent of one-third in the disputed well, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29.10.2005. 5. Both the parties submitted their affidavits and supporting documents. 6. Learned trial Judge, vide order dated 21.5.2010, had allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained defendants-respondent No. 1 and 2 from causing obstruction in the disputed well, situated in survey No. 1224. Defendants No. 1 and 2 submitted Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3/2010, which having been allowed vide the impugned order dated 23.7.2010, the present writ petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the parties made their respective submissions. 8. Defendants No. 1 and 2 submitted Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3/2010, which having been allowed vide the impugned order dated 23.7.2010, the present writ petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the parties made their respective submissions. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the trial Court had rightly granted temporary injunction in their favour against defendant-respondent No. 1 and 2, which has been reversed by the learned Lower appellate Judge without proper consideration of evidence on record, as well as legal provisions. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 9. Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the right, title or interest to the extent of one-third in the disputed well was not sold to defendants No. 1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.2005, since the same was not so mentioned expressly in the sale deed. 10. We have gone through the copy of the sale deed, which is on record as annexure P-4. It is clearly mentioned in the said sale deed that one-third of the land comprised in survey Nos. 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225 and 1226 situated in village Bhonti, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri was sold by the plaintiffs to defendants No. 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/-. Portion so sold to defendant No. 1 and 2 has not been specified in the sale deed. This being so, it may be concluded for the time being that one-third undivided share in the land was sold to defendant No.1 and 2 by the plaintiffs. The disputed well has not been excluded from the subject matter of the sale made vide the said registered sale deed. Since one-third share in the property described in the sale deed was sold, obviously, it would include one-third in survey No. 1224 wherein the disputed well is situated. Neither by specific expression nor by necessary implication, it can be said on the basis of language of the sale deed that the disputed well to the extent of one-third was not sold to defendants No. 1 and 2. A well provides an important source of irrigation for agricultural land and the person purchasing an agricultural land having a well situated therein is not expected to set apart the well from the purchase. A well provides an important source of irrigation for agricultural land and the person purchasing an agricultural land having a well situated therein is not expected to set apart the well from the purchase. Such exclusion of the well should be either specified in the sale deed itself or it may be gathered by necessary implication. Copy of the aforesaid sale deed does not give any such indication in the least. Moreover, the learned Lower Appellate Court in paragraph 9 has clearly observed that defendants No. 1 and 2 have placed on record an affidavit dated 28.10.2005 of plaintiffs acknowledging thereby one-third purchase by defendants No. 1 and 2 in the land purchased vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.2005, which obviously includes title and interest to the extent of one-third in the well in question. It has been further observed by the learned Lower Appellate Judge that the affidavit dated 22.10.2005 of the plaintiffs was neither rebutted nor explained by them. Considering it, we observe that the learned lower appellate Court has not acted illegally or has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 11. The word "well" has not been defined in M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Plaintiffs have admittedly executed the registered sale deed dated 26.10.2005 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1 and 2, in respect of one-third share in the land comprised in survey Nos. 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225 and 1226 situated in village Bhonti, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri. The disputed well is situated in survey No. 1224. 12. "Land" has been defined in Clause (k) of sub-section (I) of section 2 of the MPLR Code as follows: Section 2 (1): -- In this Code, unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context, (k) "land" means a portion of the earth's surface whether or not under water, and; where land is referred to in this Code, it shall be deemed to include all things attached to or permanently fastened to any thing attached to such land;" 13. On perusal of the aforesaid sale deed, it has been revealed that the plaintiffs have not excepted the disputed well while making transfer of the one-third undivided share in the land mentioned therein. On perusal of the aforesaid sale deed, it has been revealed that the plaintiffs have not excepted the disputed well while making transfer of the one-third undivided share in the land mentioned therein. Since, defendants No.1 and 2 have purchased the agricultural land comprised in the above mentioned survey numbers, they would definitely need a source of water in the form of well for irrigating the agricultural land, so purchased. No reservation has been made by the plaintiffs in respect of the disputed well while transferring the above mentioned land, by way of the said sale deed. Since survey No. 1224, comprised in the disputed well has been expressly mentioned in the said sale deed in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1 and 2, as having been sold, one-third share in the disputed well situated in survey No. 1224, would also stand transferred to defendant-respondents No. 1 and 2, by virtue of the purchase made by them. 14. "Land" within the meaning of the said definition would also include portion of the earth's surface whether or not under water. This being so, one-third share in the disputed well may be treated as having been sold by the plaintiffs to defendants-respondents No.1 and 2 and transfer of one-third share in the disputed well would not be repugnant to the subject or context of the said sale deed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the one-third share of the plaintiffs in the disputed well would be prima facie deemed to have been transferred and it's consideration is deemed to be ex-facie included in the lump-sum consideration described in the sale deed. Accordingly, defendants-respondent No.1 and 2 are not liable to be absolutely restrained from causing obstruction or from making use of it. 15. It may be seen that the plaintiffs as well as defendants No.1 and 2 may require water for irrigating their respective fields. Defendants No. 1 and 2 having purchased undivided one third share in the land including survey No. 1224 from the plaintiffs themselves, cannot be denied their right to have the water from the well situated in survey No. 1224. Keeping in view the same in mind, the learned trial Judge, may invoke section 89 of CPC for arriving at a by-parte settlement providing separate timings for the parties to take water from the well. 16. Keeping in view the same in mind, the learned trial Judge, may invoke section 89 of CPC for arriving at a by-parte settlement providing separate timings for the parties to take water from the well. 16. In the result, the writ petition having no substance, is hereby dismissed, however, with an expectation from the trial Court to make an endeavour to settle the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants-respondents No.1 and 2 who are obviously neighbours. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we observe that the learned Lower Appellate Court has not acted illegally or has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. In the result the writ petition is hereby dismissed, however, with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.