GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the instant suit against the defendants seeking declaration to the effect that she has become co -sharer/co -owner to the extent of 1/2 share in 3HP electric motor bearing account No. L3 -732 installed over the land bearing Khasra No. 21//3 min(1 -10) situated in village. Laadwala, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala on the basis of sale deeds dated 05.05.2003 and 04.05.2004 executed by defendant No. 1 (now respondent No. 2) in her favour. She further sought declaration to the effect that decree dated 02.09.2000 suffered by defendants No. 1 (now respondent No. 2) and 7 (now respondent No. 9) in favour of defendants No. 2 (now appellant) and 3 (now represented by respondents No. 3 to 5) and Karnail Singh, predecessor -in -interest of defendants No. 4 to 6 (now respondents No. 6 to 8), and the compromise dated 02.09.2000 arrived in Suit No. 207 of 16.08.2000 titled as 'Gurcharan Singh etc. v. Joginder Kaur and others', was ineffective and inoperative qua her Fights regarding 3HP electric motor bearing account No. L3 -732. The plaintiff -respondent No. 1 further sought injunction restraining the defendants from preventing her from the use and enjoyment of the aforesaid electric motor and also restraining the defendants from using any part of her land as a passage or making of any water channel for passing of water from the aforesaid electric motor to their land or otherwise interfering into her peaceful possession over the land purchased by her, as detailed in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants.

(2.) THE trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 partly decreed the suit to the effect that the defendants were restrained from making passage or water channel in the land, which the plaintiff had purchased from defendant No. 1. Rest of the relief claimed by the plaintiff was declined. While passing the aforesaid decree in favour of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1, the trial Court also found that the suit land was in her exclusive possession.

(3.) STILL not satisfied, defendant No. 2 has filed the instant appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below aggrieved from the relief granted to the plaintiff -respondent restraining the defendants from making passage or water channel in the land which the plaintiff had purchased from defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2).