SHYAM SUNDER Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal had been admitted vide order dated 05.01.1987 on the following substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of Appeal:

(3.) In order to appreciate as to whether these two substantial questions of law really arise from the two judgments of the Courts below which are non concurrent, it is necessary to appreciate the facts. According to the plaint case there is a Well between the office of the Congress Party and Rani Wala Madarsa and towards the South of the Well a Piyau (public place to offer drinking water hereinafter referred to as Piyau) with a Kothri beneath it. This Piyau is solid (Pakka) and permanent and it is being run by the plaintiff and the plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession. He further claims that the well is also a part of the Piyau.