KAILASHCHANDRA Vs. RUKHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF of Civil Suit No. 88A/72 is not satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court which has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. Plaintiff wants reversal of this decree and restoration of Trial Court which was in his favour. It is for this purpose he has filed this Second Appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. The impugned judgment/decree is dated 17.4.1982 passed by District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil First Appeal No. 8A/80 whereas the judgment and decree of Trial Court is dated 22.12.1979 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Mahidpur, in aforementioned suit. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law : ' 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, by upsetting the judgment and decree of the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the respondents will have a right to take the water from the well on the basis of an easementry right in absence of any pleading or evidence to that effect?

(2.) FACTS of the case are simple and few.

(3.) THE defendant while denying the claim of the plaintiff claimed ownership of well in herself on the ground that it is situated on the land which she has purchased and hence she claimed a right to use the well and its water as owner.