SARBA SINGH Vs. MIBARIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Kathua who reversed the decision of the Munsiff at Hiranagar in a suit for mandatory injunction brought by the appellants against the respondent. The plaint averred that the defendant was discharging rain water from his roof through Parnalas on to the wall of the house of the plaintiffs and also to their compound. The plaintiffs therefore asked for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to remove the Parnalas.

(2.) THE only point for determination in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation as held by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court relied on the residuary Article 119 which is as under: -

(3.) THE evidence in the case was that the three Parnalas in question were in existence prior to six years before the institution of the suit. It follows, inevitably, from this finding that water through these Pamalas was let out for the first time to the plaintiffs compound and the wall of their house more than six years before the plaintiffs instituted the suit for injunction. The lower appellate Court thought that the period of six years must be computed from the date when for the first time water was allowed to flow through the Parnalas on to the precincts and property of the plaintiffs.