R.S.A. No. 1503 of 1988 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1503 of 1988 Date of Decision: Aug. 25, 2010 Ram Chander and others .................................. Appellants versus Parbhati Lal and others .................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Rajat Panjeta, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The defendants/appellants have filed this appeal impugning the judgment dated 31.8.1984 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Rewari, and the judgment dated 30.1.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed and the present appellants were restrained from altering the mode of irrigation and also restrained from raising any construction on the disputed well. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents R.S.A. No. 1503 of 1988 [ 2 ] Parbhati Lal and others filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 22 from raising construction on disputed well known as `Bakan Wala' as described in para 1 of the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.23 to 25 are co-sharers in the disputed well to the extent of 12/70 share vide Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 and that the respondents are trying to raise construction over the disputed well as also to install an electric motor in the disputed well for the purpose of irrigation. The trial Court held that as the plaintiffs as well as the respondents are co-sharers in the disputed well to the extent of 12/70 share and were jointly irrigating their agricultural land through Lav Chiras and, therefore, the defendants/appellants cannot raise construction or irrigate their fields by installing the electric motor in the well without the consent of the plaintiffs. It was further held that the defendants cannot alter the disputed well for their exclusive use. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondents was decreed by the trial Court. The appellants filed an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 30.1.1988 wherein the findings of the trial Court have been affirmed. It is against these two judgments that the present appeal has been filed. The question of law that arises for consideration in the present case is “Whether the defendants are legally entitled to raise construction over the disputed well and are also entitled to install an electric motor in the common well which is being used by the plaintiffs and the defendants?” A perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below shows that the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the disputed `Bakan Wala' well to the extent R.S.A. No. 1503 of 1988 [ 3 ] of 12/70 share. Both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are entitled to the use of well and any construction or installation of a motor in the well can only be done with the consent of all the parties concerned. In case, one of the parties is allowed to raise construction or to install a motor in the well then the rights of the other parties would obviously be affected with regard to the usage of the well. In Thamson Singh v. Sohana and others AIR 1950 East Punjab 21 it was held as under:- “The defendants, co-owners of a well-fixed a persian wheel over the well to irrigate their lands. The plaintiff also a co- owner objected to such use of the well by the defendants and so he brought a suit for the removal of the wheel. The plaintiff even was in enjoyment of the well. It was held that act complained of did not amount to complete ouster of the plaintiff from the enjoyment of the well with the result that injury itself was continuous.” Thus, it has been established from record that as the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are co-sharers in the disputed well and were irrigating their lands through the said well, then the defendants/appellants cannot install electric motor in the disputed well for their exclusive use without the consent of the plaintiffs. Resultantly, it is held that the appellants have no authority to install the electric motor without the consent of the plaintiffs who stand proved to be co-sharers in the well in dispute. The question of law is accordingly answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. Consequently, the concurrent findings recorded by both the R.S.A. No. 1503 of 1988 [ 4 ] Courts below are upheld. For the aforementioned reasons, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Decree-sheet be drawn. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) 25.8.2010 JUDGE rupi