UTTAM SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) Tersely, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain the defendant from watering his fields comprising in Khewat No.71/1, Khatauni No.100/1, Khasra No.30/4, situated in village Lehal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana from electric motor (tube-well) on the ground that he is joint owner in possession of the land surrounding the land of the defendant where the electric motor is installed and further that defendant has no right to restrain the plaintiff from watering his fields. In the plaint, it was alleged that the defendant is his brother with whom he has the joint holding. The plaintiff has been watering his fields through electric motor installed in the land comprising in Khewat No.71/1, Khatauni No.100/1, Khasra No.30/4 from the date he inherited the land and he never relinquished his right in the Well and as such his share continues to exist. It was alleged that the defendant has threatened the plaintiff that he would not permit him to use the tube-well for the purpose of watering his fields. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant had alleged that he is exclusive owner of the motor and electricity connection bearing account No.Z-181. The electric motor was installed by the defendant in the year 1986 in the bore dug up by him. He had constructed a room/kotha and also purchased the electric motor after defraying all expenses. The plaintiff had never spent a single penny on the installation of electric motor, therefore, there is no jointness of the electric motor of the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff had moved a false complaint in the month of June, 2000 before the SDM, Payal in order to harass him, pursuant to which the Revenue Officer visited the spot and the plaintiff admitted in presence of various villagers and the revenue officers that he is not owner of the electric motor which belongs to the defendant. The SDM, Payal dismissed the application of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant had purchased 1/4th share of his brother Teja Singh vide sale deed dated 12.05.1998 bearing Vasika No.2954 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,72,500/- and 1/4th share of his other brother Ranjit Singh vide sale deed dated 14.06.1991 as there were four sons of Puran Singh who had inherited his estate to the extent of 1/4th share each. The defendant became owner of 3/4th share and plaintiff remained owner of 1/4th share. It was alleged that the defendant had been watering his fields from the joint bore dug up in the year 1975 which was insufficient to fulfil the needs of irrigation and then he dug up a separate bore in which he installed electric motor in the year 1986 bearing all expenses himself. In nut shell, the case set up by the defendant is that the bore which was sold by his brothers Teja Singh and Ranjit Singh was the old bore which has become non-functional and the tube-well/electric motor is installed in the bore which was dug up by him after meeting all the expenses. Therefore, the said bore/tube-well could not be termed to be a joint property of plaintiff and defendant.