KARTAR SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 02.11.1989, whereby the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from stopping the flow of water through the drain shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, was dismissed in appeal. The plaintiff alleged that earlier the defendant Pritam Singh was the owner of the area now in possession of the plaintiff as owner. The plaintiff and defendants executed exchange deed dated 21.12.1965. The plaintiff claimed that water coming out of the house of the plaintiff as well as defendants' passes through the drain, shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint for the last 30 years. Such fact is mentioned in the exchange deed as well. The defendants intend to stop the flow of water, which effects the rights of the plaintiff and, thus, the plaintiff claimed a decree for permanent injunction.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit and admitted the exchange deed, but denied that the drain as alleged by the plaintiff existed for the last 30 years. It was pleaded that sullage and rainy water of the house of the defendant Pritam Singh flows from South to North, whereas rainy water and waste water of the house of defendant No. 1 -Pritam Singh, plaintiff -Kartar Singh and Raksha Rani, neighbourer has been passing through the said drain in the street and thereafter it fell into the path running from North to South after turning towards West. It was pointed out that water from the house of the plaintiff and Raksha Rani never flowed through the house of the defendant.

(3.) To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced exchange deed Ex. P1 and site plan Ex. P2 attached with the said exchange deed. The plaintiff also examined PW-2 Dalbir Singh, MHC, P.S. Kartarpur, who proved Ex. P4 i.e. Entry No. 29 in the daily diary of P.S. Kartarpur dated 01.03.1983 and PW-3 Pamma Lal, another resident of area. On the other hand, the defendants have examined DW-1 Roshan Lal and DW-2 Amar Singh in support of their case.