LAWS(RAJ)-1993-5-38

HARJITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 20, 1993
Harjitendra Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by District Judge Shriganganagar dt. 10.4.1992 who dismissed the suit for permanent injunction by reversing the judgment and decree passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class Sri Ganganagar dt. 5.10.1987

(2.) PLAINTIFF -appellant Larjitonadrajeet Singh filed a suit alleging that a Khatedar tenancy existed in favour of the plaintiff's grandfather Darbara Singh. Plaintiffs father died during the lifetime of Darbarasing and after the death of Darbarasingh he became Khatedar of land in dispute. The land in dispute is a garden for which additional water supply was sanctioned by the Irrigation Department since 1947. According to the plaintiff's allegation, about 2 1/2 years before filing the suit, respondent disconnected the supply of water to the plaintiffs garden. Principal ground on which the restoration of supply of water to the garden by grant of permanent injunction, was claimed was that the order of closure of water supply was passed without notice to the plaintiff. The defendants in their written statement claimed that notices Ex. 17 were issued to the plaintiff in the year 1976 before passing the order. Thereafter when the plaintiff did not appear inspite of service, water of supply was closed vide order Ex. 18 in 1976. Defendants also pleaded that the suit was barred by time in as much as the order of closing the water supply was passed in 1976 and the suit has been filed in 1982.

(3.) ON appeal, lower appellate court reversed both he findings, it held that because notices were served on the plaintiff, the fact that they were issued in the name of dead person is of little importance. also came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove that water supply was stopped within three years of filing the suit. Hence the suit was barred by time. On these findings decree passed by the trial court was reversed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.