VENI RAM Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a filed by the respondents against the appellants for a declaration and a mandatory permanent injunction. According to respondents/plaintiffs, they have a right to unobstructed flow of natural water from their own field which is at a higher level to that of the appellants field, which is at a lower level situated just across a small way in between the two fields. The plaintiffs/respondents had complained that the defendants/appellant had obstructed free flow of water from the plaintiffs/respondents field to the defendants field by increasing the level of their field at the boundry by stacking debris removed from a well sunk by the appellant/defendants in their field. The defendants on the other hand took a stand that there was no right vested in plaintiffs to pass the water in his field on to the defendants' field. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit. This second appeal has now been filed against these concurrent judgments and decress.

(2.) THE following substantial questions of law have been framed in this appeal on 2 -1 -1979.

(3.) THERE should be no doubt that owner of a higher adjacent field has a right to uninterrupted flow of water to the lower field. In Gibbons v. Lenfestey and another AIR 1915 P. C. 165 it was observed as follows;