JUDGMENT Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Defendant-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from illegally and forcibly obstructing interference in the peaceful use of electric tubewell connection. 2. Undisputedly, father of the parties, namely, Kartar Singh was owner of land measuring 69 bighas and 23 biswas. He had installed a tubewell and got an electric connection thereon. On the death of Kartar Singh, property was inherited by his three sons, plaintiff, defendant and Jagroop Singh. It is not in dispute that the parties divided the property amongst themselves with mutual consent and pursuant thereto mutation was sanctioned. However, on the reading of the settlement, partitioning the land, it is apparent that no division was made with regard to tubewell connection and the tubewell. 3. Both the courts below after examining the evidence have found that a compromise deed (deed of partition) does not make a provision for tubewell and its electric connection, therefore, the same would continue to be joint and hence the plaintiff is entitled to use the same. 4. This court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance gone through the judgments passed by the courts below and deed of compromise, which has been translated and produced before the court. 5. It is undisputed that the aforesaid deed of compromise does not deal with the tubewell or the electric connection installed in the land. 6. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the piece of land on which the tubewell installed had fallen to the share of the defendant-appellant, therefore, defendant-appellant shall be exclusive owner of the tubewell and electric connection. He further submitted that on partition of the land, land stood transferred in favour of the defendant-appellant and therefore, everything, which is attached thereto would also be owned by the defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act in support of his argument. 7. This court has considered the submission. 8. section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act is operating in entirely different field. Section 8 deals with the effect of transfer of the property from transferor to transferee. In the present case, partition of the property is only a division between co-owners. In such circumstances, 9. 7. This court has considered the submission. 8. section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act is operating in entirely different field. Section 8 deals with the effect of transfer of the property from transferor to transferee. In the present case, partition of the property is only a division between co-owners. In such circumstances, 9. Section 8 would have no application. 10. Still further, no evidence has been led to prove that the plaintiff-respondent has any other source of irrigation apart from the aforesaid tubewell. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the courts below does not appear unreasonable. 11. In view thereof, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. 12. The regular second appeal is dismissed.