B SUSHEELAMMA Vs. L HEERALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant herein. The respondents laid thesuit for mandatory injunction to close the well dug in plot No. 13 purchased by the appellant. Admittedly the respondents and the appellent are adjacent owners. The respondents laid the suit for mandatory injunction on the ground that without leaving any open space, the appellant dug the well. Despite the respondents' objection, the appellant dug the well to a depth of 32 feet posing danger to the enjoyment of the property by the respondents and the well water gets percolated into the site of the respondents and it i5, therefore, an actionable wrong obstructing the enjoyment of the property.

(2.) It is an admitted case that the appellant has dug the well in hersite. But, her case is that the apprehension of the respondents and the injurious effect thereof are only imaginary. Therefore, they have no factual basis.

(3.) On framing appropriate issues and adduction of evidence, thetrial court accepted the case of the appellant and dismissed the suit. On appeal the appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit. Thus, this second appeal.