CHATRU AND OTHERS Vs. SURTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chatru and others, who are now appellants, had filed a suit (which has given rise to this appeal) against defendant No. 1 Surta (now respondent No. 2) for mandatory injunction for demolition of the Khal in dispute. It was alleged in the plaint that surta defendant was owner of land situated towards the East of the land of the plaintiffs and his land used to be irrigated from the water course passing through the land of one Allah Singh. However, defendant No. 1 in connivance with the Canal Authorities got a water course dug through their land. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that they did not receive any notice nor any compensation was paid to them in respect of that water course.

(2.) Surta defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable in Civil Court as they had not exhausted the remedy available to them under the Northern India Canal a Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter Called the Act). He also alleged that the water course in dispute was a sanctioned one and was given to him in consolidation proceedings and as the plaintiffs had demolished it, therefore, the Canal Authorities had got it restored.

(3.) Upon the allegations of the parties, the learned Trial Court -framed the following issues: -