RUMINDER SINGH Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 9.10.2006 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 5.6.2009.

(2.) The dispute as raised by the plaintiff/respondent was that he was owner of Khasra No.19//18/2 which had fallen to his share after the partition had been effected between the appellant and respondent No.1 and further that there is a tubewell existing in the said khasra number which is owned and possessed by him and that the appellants be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection and also to restrain the appellants, who were defendants No.1 to 4 in the suit, from interfering in the operation of the tubewell. The appellants/defendants pleaded that the tubewell was existing in the said Khasra number as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent but it was existing in the area which was in their possession and which had come to their share after the partition. Both the courts concluded on the basis of evidence that the tubewell exists in Khasra No.19//18/2 which is in possession of the plaintiff/respondent and that the appellants have failed to prove the existence of tubewell in their land.

(3.) Aggrieved by the findings of the Courts below, the present regular second appeal has been filed and the learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is complete misreading of evidence as the documentary evidence has been completely ignored. In para no.12 of the memorandum of appeal the appellants have formulated the following question of law :-