LAHANBHAU DADA PERANE Vs. GOPINATH KESHAV NIMSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/ original defendant no.4 is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court dtd. 4/2/2019 by which, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.133/2018 has been allowed and the petitioner is restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs from taking water from the suit well by using the existing electric motor.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the Trial Court has rejected the applications exhibit 5 and exhibit 24 filed by the plaintiffs in RCS No.554/2008, vide order dtd. 12/10/2017. The plaintiffs preferred MCA No.133/2018, which was partly allowed by the impugned judgment. Grievance is that though in 1981, the plaintiffs were allowed to take water from the suit well by installing the electric motor by way of an agreement between the parties, the situation has recently undergone a change and the plaintiffs have their own well in their own land. Now that they are self sufficient and can draw water from their own well, the petitioner/ defendant no.4 was right in preventing the plaintiffs from drawing water from the suit well, which has come to the share of the petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and have gone through the ten grounds formulated in the memo of the petition.