THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.801 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff in O.S.No.118 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur, is the appellant. He filed that suit against the respondents with a prayer to direct them to handover the possession of the bore-well described in the plaint schedule, and for perpetual injunction, to restrain the respondents from taking water from that bore-well, or from otherwise interfering with the possession and enjoyment thereof. He pleaded that his father by name, Narayana was granted patta in respect of the land in Sy.No.595/1, of Ananthaiahgaripalli Village, Pullampet Mandal, and that he dug the bore-well, marked as ‘X’, in the plaint plan. According to him, the respondents are the owners of neighbouring land, and on a request made by the respondent, he permitted them to fit an electric motor, and both of them were cultivating the lands with the water pumped from the well. The complaint of the appellant was that the respondents were asserting their rights in respect of the bore-well, and were not extending co-operation. The respondents filed a written-statement. They denied the averments of the plaint. According to them, the bore-well was dug in an uncultivated fallow Government land, and neither the appellant nor his father had any right over it. They have also stated that, after digging the bore-well, by themselves, they have obtained electric power connection. They stated that, initially a motor, with a capacity of 7.5 H.P., was installed, and the same was replaced by the one, of 10 H.P. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through it judgment dated 19- 10-2005. The appellant filed A.S.No.31 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The appeal was dismissed on 06-12-2007. Hence, this Second Appeal. Smt.N. Shobha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant is sufficient to establish his title over the land as well as the bore-well, and the Courts below did not appreciate the same from the correct perspective. She contends that the respondents took advantage of the poverty of the appellant, and the permission accorded for limited use of bore-well is misused. The appellant claimed the relief of recovery of possession of the bore-well, and for consequential reliefs. For this, he proceeded on the assumption that there was no dispute as to his title over the land as well as the bore-well. In their written-statement, the respondents categorically denied the right of the appellant on the land, as well as bore-well. They have also referred to an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, on 22-09-1997, directing resumption of the land to Government. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: I) Whether the plaintiff got right, title possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property ? II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of bore well situate in plaint schedule land ? III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking water from the suit bore well ? IV) Whether the defendants are licensee and they agreed to the condition to remove the electric motor from the plaintiffs X bore well and delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiff ? V) Whether the Government drilled the suit X bore well in temple land ? VI) Whether the suit X bore well is drilled by Sri Laxmi bore well service in the year, 1994, a costs of Rs.13,700/- invested by the defendants ? On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were filed. Substantial portion of the documentary evidence is, in the form of exchange of notices. On behalf of the respondents, DWs 1 to 3 were examined, and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and A.S.No.31 of 2005, preferred by the appellant, was also failed. Though the appellant claimed title vis-à-vis the land, and filed certain documents in support thereof, it ultimately emerged that the land was resumed to Government. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Kadapa, feeling aggrieved by the order of resumption, dated 22-09-1997, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet. The appeal was rejected on 29-05-1999, and the same is filed as Ex.B-1. Therefore, the very basis, on which the appellant claimed rights over the well; became shaky. In case the appellant proved that he dug the bore-well, the cancellation of patta by the Government subsequent thereto, would not have made much difference. Though he pleaded that he dug the bore- well, he did not adduce any evidence in that behalf. Further, electricity connection for operating a motor in a bore-well is invariably sanctioned in favour of the owner of the land. In the instant case, the connection was sanctioned in favour of the respondents and pass book thereof is filed as Ex.B-3. They have also named the agency, which was engaged to dig the bore-well. Under these circumstances, the relief claimed by the appellant could not have been granted, unless his title to the land is established, or declared by the Court of law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, left open to the appellant to file the suit, or pursue other proceedings, for declaration of title, either to the bore-well or for the land, on which it was dug, and claim other ancilliary reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27-07-2010. KO