MOHINDER KAUR Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed by defendants no. 1 and 2 Mohinder Kaur and her son Sukhdarshan Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 22.12.2010 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 5.10.2012 Annexure P/6 passed by the lower appellate court thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff Ajmer Singh and thereby restraining defendants no. 1 and 2/petitioners from interfering in peaceful usage to the extent of 1/4th share of electric motor of 7 1/2 horse power along with connection bearing Account No. old H.46 and new H.96 along with Bore and water course and also restraining the petitioners from demolishing the water course and from shifting or transferring the aforesaid electric motor with connection to some other place till disposal of the suit.

(2.) SOME land was purchased by Mehar Singh predecessor of the petitioners from Surinder Pal Singh and Chamkaur Singh vide sale deeds 31.5.1984, 30.12.1985 and 15.11.2002 whereas some other land was purchased by defendant no. 3-Balbir Singh (respondent no. 2) from same Surinder Pal Singh vide sale deed dated 6.8.2004. Defendant no. 3 sold the said land to plaintiff Ajmer Singh vide sale deed dated 17.11.2004. Case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the aforesaid land along with 14th share in the motor and connection along with Bore and water course and therefore, he has right to use the same to that extent.

(3.) THE aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioners was asked to refer to record of Electricity Board to depict that it was a new connection granted in favour of the petitioners, but counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any such record. Counsel for the petitioners referred to judgment dated 28.7.2012 Annexure P/4 whereby suit filed by defendant no. 3 herein against defendants no. 1 and 2 herein was dismissed. However, the said judgment cannot be used against the present plaintiff who was not party to the said suit. Moreover, the said judgment is under challenge in appeal as admitted by counsel for the petitioners. On the other hand, whole case of the plaintiff is that disputed connection no. H96 is new number for the old connection No. H46. Existence of old connection no. H46 in the land of the vendors is not disputed even by counsel for the petitioners.