RSA No. 784 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2207-C of 2010 and RSA No. 784 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 19, 2010 Rajender Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Pal Kaur alias Harpal Kaur and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.G.S.Mann, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 2207 -C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 16 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 784 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing their water course which had been running for the last more than 40 years. Both the courts below found that the watercourse in question was a Katcha personal watercourse of the respondents and that the appellant RSA No. 784 of 2010(O&M) 2 had not been able to prove any agreement from which she derived the right to use the said watercourse to irrigate her fields and consequently dismissed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the plaintiff-appellant has got the easementary right being the watercourse is in question has been used by her and previous owner for last more than 40 years? ii)Whether the plaintiff-appellant can be deprived of her right to irrigate her field through the watercourse in question? Both the courts have found that the watercourse in question is a Katcha watercourse situated in the land of the respondents and that the appellant has not been able to show any agreement through which she derived the right to use the said watercourse. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding both the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 19, 2010 sunita