RSA no.4410 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4410 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.02.2011 Mohinder Singh .....Appellant Versus Jujhar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Jagjit Singh,Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were co-owners in possession of tube well connection K3-934 of 3 HP installed in the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they had purchased the share of defendant No.1 out of the suit land. The tubewell connection was in the name of defendant No.1. The aforesaid connection was being used by plaintiff No.3 and defendant No. 1 jointly and they have been paying the electricity bills. Defendant no.1 had also sold all his rights in the tubewell connection RSA no.4410 of 2009(O&M) 2 to plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 at the time of alienation of his share in the suit property. Defendant no.1 in his written statement admitted that he had sold his share in the suit property to plaintiff No.1 but it was denied that the tubewell connection in question had been jointly got installed by the answering defendant and plaintiff no.3. The tubewell connection in question was exclusively owned by defendant No.1. Defendant no.1 could, thus, shift the tubewell connection to the place of his choice. Defendants no. 2 to 4 in their written statement submitted that the plaintiffs was not Consumer of Board and has no locus standi to file the suit. The connection in question was in the name of defendant No.1. Suit qua defendants No. 5 to7 was got dismissed as withdrawn. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for?OPA 3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 4.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2005, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2009, the said appeal was allowed by the Additional RSA no.4410 of 2009(O&M) 3 District Judge(Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. A decree for declaration was passed in favour of the plaintiffs that they were owners in possession of the share purchased from defendant No.1 along with tubewell connection. Defendant No.1 was restrained from interfering or disconnecting or getting the tubewell connection shifted from the spot. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, defendant No.1 had sold his share out of the suit land to plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 13.5.2002. A perusal of the copy of the sale deed shown, during the course of arguments, reveals that a note had been written in the sale deed that the above mentioned land was being sold along with sources of irrigation. There is nothing on record to suggest that defendant No.1 had ever challenged the said note incorporated in the sale deed. In these circumstances, the learned first Appellate Court rightly held that now defendant No.1 could not deny the rights of the vendees to irrigate the land which had been sold by defendant No.1 to them along with sources of irrigation. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 07,2011 arya