BAHADUR SINGH Vs. SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands, directed by the aggrieved plaintiff, who has suffered reversal, of the verdict, decreeing his suit, hence, pronounced, by the learned trial Court, rather by the First Appellate Court, wherethrough, the plaintiffs' suit for rendition of, a, decree of injunction, for, hence restraining the defendant, from, raising construction of Gharat, over suit khasra No. 124, khata khatuani No. 9/20 min, measuring 4.13 bighas, and, also for restraining him, for, taking the water channel upon khasra No. 125, khata khatauni No. 5/12 min, measuring 0.14 bighas, situated in mauza Pirgari, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., rather stands dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for injunction alleging there he is co-owner in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 125, measuring 0.14 biswas, situated at village Pirgari, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. along with khasra No. 124, measuring 4 bighas 13 biswas. A Gharat was constructed over khasra No. 270/126, which was owned and run by Prem Singh, father of defendant, who died about 16 years back. No patta was granted in favour of any person including the defendant and the Gharat is not functioning. The defendant cannot operate the Gharat without seeking prior permission of the Government of H.P. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant in connivance with the Revenue Officials is trying to raise the construction of Gharat over the land comprised in khasra No. 124 and alsotrying to carry the water through khasra No. 125 withouty any locus standi. The Gharat according to the plaintiff is in khasra No.270/126 and the defendant is at liberty to renovate the same. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant has started the work on 16.9.2001 by carrying the water through khasra No. 125 and if the defendant is not restrained from raising the construction of Gharat or taking the water through khasra No. 125, the plaintiff shall be ruined. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no right on khasra No.124 and thus, ye prayed for the relief.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, taking certain preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. On merits, the defendant has denied that the plaintiff is co-owner over khasra No. 124, but according to him he is also co-owner over khasra No. 124/1 measuring 1 biswa. The defendant has admitted that there is a Gharat over khasra No.270/126, which is owned and possessed by the defendant since the time of his father who was running the same without any hindrance. He has denied that the Gharat was ceased to operate after the death of his father Sh. Prem Singh. There is no question of liquidating the Gharat. He is not taking any water through khasra No.125. According to the plaintiff there is khala of village Kathla from where the water is coming for the Gharat. He has denied the remaining contents of the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.