KAMTA Vs. SAJIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants had their house in village Abadi Plot No. 1327. Near their house, there was a paudar (incline for rub-way of bullocks for the purpose of drawing water from well). A portion of that paudar which fell in plot no. 1327 is claimed to be in the sehan of the defendants. The plaintiff's well and house etc. are in plot no. 1379. The paudar extends from the well in 1379 to 1327.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that they had made the paudar for drawing water from their well in their sehan and the paudar was in the vacant land in Abadi. It was contended that the paudar was in existence since 60 years and the defendats had no right to interfere in the use of the same. THE defendants, maliciously filled up the portion measuring 18 feet east-west and 17 feet north-south and brought it to the level of the adjoining land and occupied the same. THE occupation was without any right and, therefore, the suit was filed claiming the removal of the earth from the pit of the paudar and restoring it to the original position and the defendants be restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's right to use the paudar for drawing water from the plaintiff's well.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant; firstly argued that the decree for possession could not be granted in favour of the plaintiffs as they were not found to be the owners of the land in dispute and utmost they would be entitled only to injunction. THE learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded to the position and agreed that in the present suit the decree for possession could not be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.