SHERO DEVI Vs. HARKESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute pertains to user of a tubewell which is installed in the joint land of the parties. The electricity connection is in the name of the appellants/defendants and taking benefits thereof they were interfering in the user of the said connection by plaintiff. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was moved which was allowed by the trial court on 1/10/2022. The appeal filed by the defendant (petitioner herein) was dismissed by the appellate court on 12/12/2023.

(2.) Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in Uttam Singh Vs. Sohan Singh 2010 (4) PLR 120 in order to contend that when the electricity connection is in the name of the defendant1 of 2 appellant and payment of electricity bill is made by him so he is to presumed to be the exclusive owner of the same and is entitled to use the same exclusively.

(3.) The aforementioned judgment as relied by the learned counsel was also been referred by the first appellate court and making a distinction, it was found that in Uttam Singh's case (supra) the tubewell in question had become non-functional and so the defendant was held to be entitled for the same exclusively. However in the present case, both the parties are owners to the extent of equal share and joint cultivation has been reflected in the revenue record.