JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1972 of II Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from having any possession or use in the Pucca water-channel shown by letters A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H. in the plaint map. The plaintiffs case was that he has got a tubewell in plot No. 1209 and that he had constructed a Pucca water channel shown with letters A.B.C.D.F.F.G.H. in the plaint map and connected the same from the said tube-well shown with letter X in the plaint map. It was alleged that the defendants 1 and 3 with the aid of defendant No. 2 wanted to take forcible possession of the said pucca water channel as they were installing tube-well in their plot near the said channel. 3. The defendants contested the suit and denied that Pucca water channel was constructed by the plaintiff. It was said that the paid water channel vested in the Gaon Sabha after the consolidation operations and the defendants along with other residents of the village had a right to use the water channel. 4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that in view of the provisions of Sections 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the plaintiff is debarred from agitating the question of ownership in respect of the water channel and the plaintiff has also failed to prove his possession in respect of the disputed water channel. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The lower appellate court recorded a finding that the water channel in suit had been constructed by the plaintiff. A finding was also recorded on the basis of the admission of the defendant that the water channel upto the point E belongs to the plaintiff and that the dispute was confined only to the water channel shown by letters E.F.G.H. in the plaint map. As far as the aforesaid portion of the water channel from points E to G was concerned, the lower appellate court recorded a finding that during the consolidation proceedings the aforesaid portion of the water channel was numbered as 832 and vested in the Gaon Sabha. A further finding recorded was that the water channel 832 was left for use by all the cultivators during the consolidation operations. A further finding recorded was that the water channel 832 was left for use by all the cultivators during the consolidation operations. The Trial Courts finding regarding the bare of Section 49 was also upheld. 5. In the present second appeal the counsel for the appellant argued that on the findings recorded by the lower appellate court, the suit of the plaintiff should have been decreed in so far as water channel upto the point E was concerned. It has also been contended that at as the water channel after the point E was held to be the property of the Gaon Sabha meant for the use by all the cultivators, an injunction should have been granted against the defendants restraining them from exclusively using the aforesaid Nali to the exclusion of all the cultivators of the village, including the plaintiff. After going through the record and the judgment of the court below I find that the contention raised by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, has got substance and on the basis of the findings recorded by the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs suit is liable to be decreed in part. Counsel for the respondent has not been able to rebut the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal succeeds in part and is partly allowed. The defendants are permanently restrained from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs user of the water channel shown by the letters A. B. C. D. E. and are further restrained from taking possession of the water channel shown with letters E. F. G. H. and not to do anything so as to restrict the user of the aforesaid water cannot E. F. G. H. by all the cultivators of the village. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.