RAM KUMAR Vs. BHIM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,164.50 by the trial court, but the said decree was modified in appeal and the decretal amount was reduced to Rs. 800/- only.

(2.) Ram Kumar and Fateh Singh (now deceased) filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,000/- on account of the damages on the allegations that there had been a water channel through the fields of the defendants. From the outlet No. 25800 in Sanjharwas Minor, canal water has been flowing for irrigation purposes. It had been eventually coming to the fields of Fateh Singh, Plaintiff, through that minor, for irrigation purposes. Their area is 46 kanals 16 marlas. During rabi 1969 Bhim Singh and Sukh Lal, closed down the water channel and stopped the flow of canal water into those fields. This resulted in the ruination of the crops standing in those fields and thus, the plaintiffs suffered the loss to the extent of Rs. 4,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the water channel was a sanctioned one. The defendants resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs in collusion with the canal authorities managed the water channel through the defendants' fields in an illegal manner. It was further pleaded that the defendants were fully justified in closing down the water channel as it was passing through their fields and the plaintiffs had no right to take the chanel through their fields. It was also denied that the plaintiffs suffered any loss on that account. However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 2,164.50 only and consequently, decreed the plaintiffs' suit to that extent. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties filed two separate appeals. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal filed on behalf of the defendants and modified the decree of the trial court to the extent of Rs. 800/- only. He dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the same, they have come up in second appeal to this court.

(3.) The defendants also filed Regular Second Appeal No. 644 of 1976 against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, but same was dismissed in limine on May 11, 1976. The appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in this Court, was admitted on May 14, 1976. When the defendants came to know that the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs had been admitted, they moved a review application in this court. The order dated September 10, 1976, passed on the said review application reads :-