MAN MOHAN Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision against the order of Additional District Judge, Narnaul dated 20.7.98 whereby he set aside the order dated 20.10.97 refusing temporary injunction to the plaintiff-respondents restraining the defendant-petitioners from installing another pumping set run by electric motor on the well in question and further restraining them from damaging the well in any manner and from taking water from the well in that manner.

(2.) Ramesh Kumar etc. plaintiff-respondents instituted suit for permanent injunction restraining Man Mohan etc. defendant-petitioners from installing another pumping set run by electric motor on the well without the consent of the other co-sharers including the plaintiffs and further restraining them from damaging the well in any manner and from taking water from the well in that manner. It was alleged in the plaint that gairmumkin chah in land measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas is joint of the parties and parties are using gaimumkin chah jointly. Gairmumkin chah and the pumping set is jointly owned, possessed and used by the plaintiffs and the other share holders. The defendants had purchased 1/60 share in the well from Hanuman co-sharer vide sale deed No. dated 4.4.95 as such the defendants have become co-sharers in possession of the well. Defendants forcibly, illegally and against the wishes of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers have threatened to install separate pumping set run by electric motor after making alteration in the well to irrigate their land. If defendants install another pumping set on the gairmumkin chah and run it with electric motor, there will be irreparable injury to the plaintiff, inasmuch as, they shall not be able to draw adequate water for the irrigation of their land from this gafrmumkin chah. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiffs made an application for the grant of temporary injunction to the aforesaid effect.

(3.) Defendants contested the prayer of the plaintiffs urging that the well in question was not used by the plaintiffs or any other co-sharers nor there was any water in the well. For the last several years, well was dry. No pumping set was ever installed on the well in question. Well in question was lying abandoned. It was full of sand. Defendants became co-sharers in the well after purchase of land through registered sale deed. After purchase of the land through registered sale deed, defendants requested every share holder for the repair of the well in question. No co-sharer agreed to the repair of the well in question. Defendants got well in question repaired at huge expense and installed pumping set being operated through diesel generating set. Defendants got water through a boring as the digging of well was uneconomical. It was further urged that plaintiffs did not have any right to restrain them from drawing water from this well through the use of the pumping set.