C. R. No. 642 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 642 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 01, 2010 Mohinder Pal and others .... Petitioners Vs. Ranjit Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 11.06.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),Yamuna Nagar, thereby accepting application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) filed by plaintiff-respondent Ranjit Singh and restraining the petitioners from creating any obstruction in user of the disputed tubewell installed in khasra no.13//1 for the purpose of irrigation of land. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate judgment dated 01.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the trial court, has been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged that the parties are descendants of Shadi Ram. C. R. No. 642 of 2010 2 Plaintiff is son of Norti Ram son of Shadi Ram, whereas defendants are sons of Sadhu Ram son of Shadi Ram. Disputed tubewell bearing electricity connection no.L-83 stands installed in khasra no.13//1. The connection had been taken in the name of Shadi Ram. However, defendants started preventing the plaintiff from using the tubewell for irrigating the land of his share. Defendants' father and predecessor Sadhu Ram had affirmed affidavit for joint user of the tubewell by both the parties. Defendants, however, pleaded that the tubewell stopped functioning about 12 years ago and thereafter, defendants entered into agreement dated 21.07.2000 (Annexure P-2), whereby submersible water pump was got installed by defendants no.1 and 2 at their own expense in khasra no.13//2 and they inherited the electricity connection released in favour of their father and since August 2000, defendants no.1 and 2 are irrigating the land through the said submersible pump. It has also been pleaded that the property had already been partitioned orally between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. In the revenue record, the land is still shown to be jointly owned and possessed by the parties including land of khasra no.13//1 as well as khasra no.13//2. Defendants' father and predecessor Sadhu Ram affirmed affidavit dated 09.05.1990 (Annexure P-1) affirming that Sadhu Ram as well as plaintiff Ranjit Singh and his brother Sumer Chand were using the disputed tubewell jointly, which is the only tubewell installed in the joint land being cultivated by all the co-sharers in equal shares and they have been using the tubewell in equal shares. It was also affirmed that all the co-sharers would continue to use the tubewell in future as well in equal shares. The electricity bill would also be paid accordingly. Sadhu Ram undertook in the affidavit that he would not create any hindrance in the running of tubewell and user thereof by plaintiff and his brother Sumer C. R. No. 642 of 2010 3 Chand. In view of this affidavit, the defendants have no case to resist the claim of the plaintiff for joint user of the disputed tubewell. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that tubewell connection stands in the name of defendants' father Sadhu Ram. However, it appears that the tubewell connection, which was initially in the name of Shadi Ram (predecessor of both the parties), was transferred in the name of defendants' father Sadhu Ram for convenience, but for this purpose, Sadhu Ram had to affirm affidavit (Annexure P-1) so that in future, Sadhu Ram or his successors would not deny the plaintiff and his brother the right to use the tubewell. It is manifest from affidavit (Annexure P-1) that notwithstanding the transfer of connection in the name of defendants' father Sadhu Ram, the tubewell continued to be joint between the parties and it continued to be used jointly by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the plaintiff and his brother did not pay the electricity bills of their shares. However, at this stage, there is prima facie nothing to substantiate this plea. In addition to it, even if it be so, the petitioners may claim the share of electricity charges from the plaintiff-respondent, but cannot prevent the plaintiff- respondent from using the joint tubewell. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the tubewell i.e. submersible pump now stands installed in khasra no.13//2 and not in khasra no.13//1 as per demarcation report Annexure P-6. However, this demarcation report has been obtained by the petitioners from the revenue authorities apparently behind the back of the plaintiff. It has to be seen by the trial court as to where the tubewell is existing at present and whether the submersible pump has been installed by defendants no.1 and 2 alone, as pleaded by them. Even if the disputed tubewell is existing in khasra no.13//2, prima facie the plaintiff has right to use the same being joint tubewell of the parties. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the C. R. No. 642 of 2010 4 instant revision petition. Both the courts below have taken a reasonable view of the matter and prima facie the tubewell being joint between the parties, the plaintiff also has a right to use the same and defendants cannot prevent the plaintiff from using it. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 01, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE