SUKHDEO Vs. DONGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant in the suit from which this appeal arises had bought a well from one Bhopal, who had purchased it at an auction-sale in execution proceedings in which Donger and Narain Lal, respondents 1 and 2, were the judgment-debtors. They had made an objection to the sale of the well in those proceedings, but the matter was decided against them, and they failed to bring a suit for establishing their alleged right.

(2.) They afterwards continued to use the well for irrigation purposes and consequently the plaintiff-appellant brought the present suit for damages and an injunction. The Courts below have decided that the well was not transferable by sale in execution of a decree-in spite of the decision of the executing Court, and they have therefore held that the plaintiff-appellant had no right to sue.

(3.) No one has appeared in this Court on behalf of the respondents, and it appears from the judgment of the trial Court that they did not appear there and the suit was heard ex parte. As I have already said they did not take any steps to reverse the finding of the execution Court against them, it is clear that they have not been at all diligent in their own defence.