which is better either "learning from books" or "learning through practice".

I think a combination of both is probably best. To be able to learn something by doing, and also have a book to refer back to as well.

If it's something I'm not very interested in, I'm definitely going to understand it better by 'doing' rather than just reading. I don't have a mechanical mind at all. I'm very well read, but I prefer to read for pleasure, not for learning. If it's something I'm interested in and want to learn, then yes, obviously I will read about it, but I still prefer practical application.

Not everyone is the same way, though. Some prefer the written word and are able to absorb that better.

Myself,I learn better if I practice a thing.
But also a combination of read and practice work quite good for me

Well, I think gaining knowledge from both aspects isn't bad at all. Books for introductions and actual practice in application clarifies any uncertainties that books somehow can't fully elaborate on.

Learning from a book can only teach you so much in my opinion. I need to get in there and get my hands dirty. I don't think that anyone will know from reading from a book how to stack a stone wall, or build a chair. It might be possible, but I would be very suprised if it is the rule. On the other hand book learning does give you a good base to build off of. I, myself, would still opt for real-world skills, as opposed to page-turning.

I think real intelligence has to be a balanced combination of both. Street smart & book dumb is dumb but book smart & street dumb is equally dumb.

It really depends. Sometimes it's both learning from the books, and learning from practice. I learn both ways by book and practice.