TARSEM SINGH Vs. JASWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff -respondents restraining the appellant from interfering in the peaceful use of joint electricity tubewell connection No. 3/BF/70 of 10 BHP, installed in the land situated in village Hissowal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. As per the plaintiff -respondents, they had purchased land measuring 51 kanals 9 -1/2 marlas, vide two sale deeds dated 17.12.2008, alongwith share of Submersible Motor of 10 BHP alongwith right of passage, trees etc. from Harnek Singh and Harbhajan Singh son of Mehar Singh son of Inder Singh. Harnek Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Hardev Singh had inherited the suit land from their father Mehar Singh who inherited the suit land from their father -Inder Singh.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , tubewell connection is in the name of Inder Singh and after his death, Mehar Singh and Ajit Singh inherited the tubewell connection also alongwith land in equal shares. After the death of Ajit Singh and Mehar Singh, the tubewell connection in question is used by Harnek Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Tarsem Singh jointly. Harnek Singh and Harbhajan Singh sold their land alongwith share in tubewell connection to the plaintiffs and they are using the same. However, the defendants have started interfering in the peaceful use of the tubewell connection by the plaintiffs. Hence the necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact that original tubewell connection in dispute was initially in the name of Inder Singh and after his death Mehar Singh and Ajit Singh (predecessors in interest) of plaintiff/respondents and Tarsem Singh -appellant inherited the land along with tubewell connection jointly. It is further not in dispute that Harnek Singh and Harbhajan Singh sold their land to the plaintiffs. Though, it is admitted fact that the land between the parties was partitioned in 2007, however, record does not show partition of the disputed electric connection amongst the parties. Again it could not be disputed before this Court that the sale deeds Ex. P3 and Ex.P4 vide which plaintiff/respondents have purchased the land clearly recites the fact that they have also purchased the share of the disputed electric connection/tubewell.