OM PRAKASH Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, the appeal of the respondent against the order granting and interim relief to the petitioner, was allowed. The facts relevant to the disposal of this petition are as under:-

(2.) It has been argued by Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that admittedly the well from which the water was being pumped out by means of the electric motor was situated in the property which was jointly owned by the petitioner and the respondent and, in that eventuality, the finding of the appellate court that as the electric connection stood in the name of the respondent he would be presumed to be its exclusive owner, loses its significance.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in the stand taken by him. Admittedly, the property in which the tubewell is situated is the joint property of the contesting parties and in that eventuality. Prima facie a presumption can be raised that the tubewell in question was also jointly owned. There also seems to be merit in the arguments of Mr. Sharma that the electric connection which had earlier been disconnected and stood/restored was in the joint name of the petitioner and the respondent and, as such, the mere fact that the name of the petitioner did not figure when it was restored would not show that he was not a co-owner thereof. It is also to be noted that the matter that has gone against the petitioner before the appellate court was that he had not been able to indicate that he had contributed anything towards the price of the motor or the power connection and, as such, had no right to use the same. This perhaps would be a double edged weapon as in order to dislodge the claim of the petitioner, the respondent ought to have produced the documents alluded to above. It is true that the onus to secure an injunction would lie heavily on the plaintiff the petitioner herein, but nevertheless keeping in view the fact that the land on which the tubewell has been dug is jointly owned by the parties, who are real brothers, the balance of convenience also rests with the petitioner.