SOHAN SINGH Vs. DAULAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application of one Satnam Singh was treated as a revision in exercise of suo motu powers vested in the High Court to examine the legality and propriety of the order dated August 11, 1990, vide which parties to the litigation, initiated by Sohan Singh plaintiff were directed to maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute till final disposal of the suit. Aforesaid orders were passed in an application filed by Sohan Singh plaintiff, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the prayer was to issue an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff or from obstructing the plaintiff from raising any sort of construction on the land measuring 14 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 125, Khatoni No. 298, Khasra No. 240, situate within the revenue estate of village Meghowal, Hadbast No. 210, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1985-86.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of the land, measuring 14 marks, description of which has been given above, which he wag using as his 'Haveli', wherein he had installed one fodder- cutting machine and a manager, where he was tethering his cattle. The defendants who had their houses located on the western side of the property in dispute, were adamant in asserting that the aforesaid property did not belong to the plaintiff. The property in dispute was earlier a vacant piece of land and the plaintiff had not raised any sort of construction over there and now when he wanted to raise construction and had started raising level of the disputed property by putting earth, the defendants, who were head strong persons, had formed a rival camp and wanted to obstruct him from raising any sort of construction on the property in dispute. The ownership and possession of the plaintiff was sought to be authenticated from entries of the jamabandi for the year 1985-86, perusal whereof shows that the plaintiff is recorded as owner in possession of the land measuring 14 marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 125, Khatoni No. 298 and Khasra No. 240. The latest girdawari entries from 1986-87 till immediately preceding the filing of the suit also depict the position as enumerated above.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants and by way of preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands, as he had suppressed the real facts. In fact, the defendants filed a civil suit regarding the suit property for permanent injunction during the summer vacation on the ground that there was a blind street shown in black colour and a pucca street shown in green colour, as per plan, situate at village Meghowal. The natural flow of water from the said street was towards a drain (Nala) as shown in red colour in the site plan. The Panchayat had constructed a drain in the eastern side of the street shown by black colour and pucca drains on both sides of the street shown in green colour upto the house of Amar Singh and thereafter on one side of the said street. The water of the houses, which are on the said street flows towards the drain shown in red colour. The flow of water in the said drain is from North to South towards the drain shown in red colour in the site plan. The Parnalas of the houses of Devinder Singh and Parsan Singh and hand-pump water of the Haveli of Karnail Singh fall in the said drain. The Parnala of the houses of Nasib Singh, Kartar Kaur, Daulat Singh and Harpal Singh defendants also fall towards the East in the drain shown by red colour in the site plan. Naranjan Singh has also constructed a projection in the roof of his house on the drain as shown in the site plan. Ventilators of the houses of the defendant also open towards the drain. The drain had been connected with the dirty-water drain towards the southern side. The water had been flowing through the said drain without any interruption of any kind as a matter of right for the last more than 50 years. The defendants and other persons, who own their houses and plots as shown in the site plan, have acquired a right of easement by way of prescription and there was a necessity to pass the water through the said drain in a bigger dirty-water drain. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had filed the present suit with malafide intention and the same was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, with regard to the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, no specific plea was raised although general denial of the pleading to that effect was made. In paragraph No. 3, it was stated that there is a drain in between the houses of the defendants and the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted to stop the flow of water in the said drain by raising a wall and filling earth in the said drain for which he had no right. The defendants with a view to prima facie prove their case did not bring on record any document except a site plan reference of which has been given while noticing the preliminary objection raised by them. Of course, for the purpose of the application for stay, they filed the site plan and no other document was placed on the record of the case. Even though initially ad interim injunction was granted by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur, but after hearing both the parties, as indicated above, the parties to the litigation were directed to maintain status quo.