out the same to the Advocate Commissioner and in such view of the matter, the defendants by laying a claim of right to the suit Well or the suit property as such cannot be allowed to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property by creating a new pathway as apprehended by the plaintiffs. In this connection, it is to be noted that DW1 has not claimed any right over the suit Well during the course of his evidence and this would only go to indicate that he is also aware of the true position of the nature of the right granted to the defendants by way of the partition deed marked as Exs.A2/B1. Further, it is also seen that as per the evidence DW1, they have been cultivating their lands through LBP channel and in such view of the matter, when admittedly, as per the partition deed Ex.A2/B1, the defendants and their predecessor in interest i.e. Kalianna Gounder had not been allotted the suit property, particularly, the suit Well and in fact, no Well had been allotted to the share of Kalianna Gounder under the said partition deed and he had been granted only right to take water from the suit Well and when features available on ground point out that the said right had not been used by the defendants over a long period of time as above discussed, the defendants cannot be allowed to misuse the limited right granted to them under Ex.A2/B1, so as to lay a new pathway in the property belonging to the plaintiffs and accordingly, it is found that the First Appellate Court had rightly accepted the plaintiffs case and allowed the appeal preferred them.
