NANAK Vs. BASANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the order dated August 28, 1965, of Shri T.N. Saxena, III Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing the appeal of the appellants after confirming the decree of the trial court.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties related to a nali; a rasta and a pulia detailed in the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was that they used to irrigate their fields from the nali aforesaid but the defendants without any right had demolished that nali and raised certain constructions over it, with the result that plaintifs, Nos. 1 to 3 were deprived of their right of irrigating their fields. It was also alleged that the rasta in dispute was a common rasta which was enjoyed by the plaintiffs also but the defendants without any right had narrowed that rasta by making constructions over it. It was further alleged that the defendants without any right had demolished the pulia in dispute which had resulted in damage to the plaintiffs. On these allegations the plaintiffs claimed possession over the aforesaid nali and rasta and wanted the defendants to restore the status quo ante. They also wanted restoration of the pulia. They further wanted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of the use of the nali, rasta and pulia. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 claimed Rs. 200.00 each as damages from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 or other defendants found liable while plaintiff No. 3 claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 20.00 from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 or other defendants found liable.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 2 alone. His defence was that the defendants had not demolished any nali or pulia as alleged in the plaint nor had the defendants narrowed any rasta of the plaintiffs. It was also alleged that the nali in dispute had been demolished by the Consolidation authorities and the State of U. P. was a necessary party. The jurisdiction of the trial court was also challenged and it was further pleaded that none of the plaintiffs was entitled to any amount of damages.