BARU Vs. DHARAMBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the exclusive use of tubewell stands dismissed. The plaintiff / appellant brought a suit against the defendants on the plea, that the plaintiff was co- sharer in the land measuring 95K-1M situated at village Meham, District Rohtak. The case of the plaintiff was that as per family settlement, he was put in exclusive possession of Killa No. 13/1(1-12) comprised in Khewat No. 219, where he installed tubwell. At the time of grant of connection, no objection certificate was taken from the defendants permitting the appellant to install the tubewell in his own name. The plea of the plaintiff, therefore, was that the defendants have no right to interfere into the exclusive use of the tubewell by the plaintiff. The suit was contested, wherein the stand taken by the plaintiff / appellant was denied, that the possession of plaintiff /appellant over Killa No. 13/1(1-12) comprised in Khewat No. 219, was exclusive. The affidavit by the defendant / respondents for installing the tubewell in his own name was given to him as Karta, as it was to be used by all the co- sharers for irrigating the land, which was jointly held. The factum of giving of affidavit was not disputed, but it was said that it was given in good faith, in view of relationship of the parties.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the appellant was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :-

(3.) In support of first substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the learned Courts below have failed to take note of the fact, that appellant was owner of Killa No. 13/1(1-12), wherein the tubewell was installed. The land was in his exclusive possession, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below on the face of it are perverse and, therefore, deserved to be set aside. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that once it was not disputed, that the tubewell was installed in the name of the appellant, the respondents had no right to interfere in its exclusive use. Especially, keeping in view the affidavits filed by the defendants at the time of installation of the tubewell.