: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.539 OF 1990 Appa Balagonda Patil since deceased through heirs & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Shivgonda Balagonda Patil & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D. Dalvi for Appellants Mr.S.A. Mudbidri for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 20th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed in Appeal No.539 of 1990 which confirms the decree passed in Suit No.24 of 1982. The appellants are the heirs of Defendant No.1 in the suit and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs and the defendants including original Defendant No.1 were cousins. An ancestral property situated in Gat No.471A, 472A and 472B is in their possession. A well which is the subject matter of the suit was being used by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the well was constructed by their father and the father of Defendant Nos.2 to 8 i.e Defendant No.1 about 35 years prior to the filing of the suit. The well is situated between the boundaries of gat No.472B and 471A. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants were drawing water from this well. It appears that after a certain period of time the plaintiffs started drawing water with the help of a pump. The plaintiffs then constructed a well in gat No.472A. From time to time, the water was being used by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. It appears that a loan was sanctioned by the bank for improvement of the well. The plaintiffs then sought an injunction against the defendants by contending that the defendat was not permitting them to use the well : 2 : water. 2. Evidence was led and it was proved by the plaintiffs that the suit well was common one between the plaintiffs and the defendants and that each of them had half a share to the suit well. The defendants were permanently injuncted from obstructing the plaintiffs from drawing their share of the water from the well. Aggrieved by this decree, the defendants filed appeal No.539 of 1990. The appellate Court concurred with the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The present Second Appeal has been filed against that order. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has raised a question as to whether an injunction can be granted against the co-owner of a suit property. 4. In my view, this is not a substantial question of law. On evidence, it has been found that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-owners of the well and that each of them had an equal share in the well and, therefore, could draw water from the well. The permanent injunction which has been granted does not in any manner exclude the defendants use of the well water. The Defendants can, as co owners, continue to enjoy the use of the water from the well as co sharers. In such circumstances, in my view, there is no need to interfere with the matter. No substantial question of law has been raised in the Appeal. 5. Appeal dismissed.