Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 282 (PNJ)

Man Mohan v. Ramesh Kumar

2000-03-08

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. This is revision against the order of Additional District Judge, Narnaul dated 20.7.98 whereby he set aside the order dated 20.10.97 refusing temporary injunction to the plaintiff-respondents restraining the defendant-petitioners from installing another pumping set run by electric motor on the well in question and further restraining them from damaging the well in any manner and from taking water from the well in that manner. 2. Ramesh Kumar etc. plaintiff-respondents instituted suit for permanent injunction restraining Man Mohan etc. defendant-petitioners from installing another pumping set run by electric motor on the well without the consent of the other co-sharers including the plaintiffs and further restraining them from damaging the well in any manner and from taking water from the well in that manner. It was alleged in the plaint that gairmumkin chah in land measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas is joint of the parties and parties are using gairmumkin chah jointly: Gairmumkin chah and the pumping set is jointly owned, possessed and used by the plaintiffs and the other share holders. The defendants had purchased 1/60 share in the well from Hanuman co-sharer vide sale deed No. dated 4.4.95 as such the defendants have become co-shares in possession of the well. Defendants forcibly, illegally and against the wishes of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers have threatened to install separate pumping set run by electric motor after making alteration in the well to irrigate their land. If defendants install another pumping set on the gairmumkin chah and run it with electric motor, there will be irreparable injury to the plaintiff, inasmuch as, they shall not be able to draw adequate water for the irrigation of their land from this gairmumkin chah. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiffs made an application for the grant of temporary injunction to the aforesaid effect. 3. Defendants contested the prayer of the plaintiffs urging that the well in question was not used by the plaintiffs or any other co-sharers not there was any water in the well. For the last several years, well was dry. No pumping set was ever installed on the well in question. Well in question was lying abandoned. It was full of sand. Defendants became co-sharers in the well after purchase of land through registered sale deed. After purchase of the land through registered sale deed, defendants requested every share holder for the repair of the well in question. No pumping set was ever installed on the well in question. Well in question was lying abandoned. It was full of sand. Defendants became co-sharers in the well after purchase of land through registered sale deed. After purchase of the land through registered sale deed, defendants requested every share holder for the repair of the well in question. No co-sharer agreed to the repair of the well in question. Defendants got well in question repaired at huge expense and installed pumping set being operated through diesel generating set. Defendants got water through a boring as the digging of well was uneconomical. It was further urged that plaintiffs did not have any right to restrain them from drawing water from this well through the use of the pumping set. 4. Vide order dated 20.10.97. Civil Judge, junior Division, Mohindergarh declined plaintiffs prayer for the grant of temporary injunction observing that there will be no irreparable injury to the plaintiffs if injunction is not granted to them. 5. Ramesh Kumar etc. plaintiffs went in appeal, which was allowed by learned Addl. Distt Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 20.7.98 observing that if the defendants are allowed to install separate pumping set, it would tantamount to allowed them to grab the share of the other co-sharers, which is not permissible in law. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Narnaul dated 20.7.98, defendants have come up in revision to this Court. 7. Plaintiffs and the defendants are co-sharers in the well in question as per the plaintiffs themselves. Land measuring 2K6 M, which is gairmumkin chah, is joint of the parties. Defendants claim to have purchased some other land falling under this well vide sale deeds No. 423 dated 13.5.96 and 220 dated 28.4.97. Pumping set is already existing there on the well. Well in question was lying abandoned. When the defendants are co-sharers in the well , why cant they install a pumping set and use the well for irrigation ? They have installed pumping set on some portion of the well at a huge expense. A pumping set is already there is that well for drawing water. Why cant the defendants install another pumping set on the joint wetland draw water? For installing another pumping set on the joint well and drawing water therefrom, no consent of the other co-sharer is required. A pumping set is already there is that well for drawing water. Why cant the defendants install another pumping set on the joint wetland draw water? For installing another pumping set on the joint well and drawing water therefrom, no consent of the other co-sharer is required. If the respondents are not allowed to install another pumping set on the well and they are not allowed to use the pumping set installed by the plaintiffs that would be depriving them of the joint use of the well. Every co-sharer has got right and can use it if there is no loss or injury to the other co-sharers. It is true that if a pumping set is installed on the well, more water would be drawn. If more than one pumping set is installed on the same well, turns of water can be regulated for the drawal of water, so that there is no diminution of water for irrigational purposes to any right holder. A co-sharer can use joint property in a manner that similar right of other co-sharers is not jeopardised. There will be irreparable injury to the defendant respondents. With the grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff respondents, defendant-petitioners shall not be able to work that well to the optimum point. A co-sharer has no right to exclude other co-sharers from the use of the joint property provided by doing so the co-sharer using the joint property does not cause any injury to the similar right of other co-sharers. Defendants have installed pumping set by boring 4 pipe. No injunction can be granted to a co-sharer, the effect of which, will be to oust another co-sharer from the use of the joint property. It was held is Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528" a co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. Every co-owner has right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners." When the defendants have purchased the share in the well, how can they be restrained from using the well ? Plaintiffs can install their own pumping set if they have not already installed one on the well and can draw water. Defendants can draw water from the well with their own pumping set. 8. Plaintiffs can install their own pumping set if they have not already installed one on the well and can draw water. Defendants can draw water from the well with their own pumping set. 8. This revision succeeds and is accepted and order of Addl. District Jude, Narnaul is set aside and that of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mohindergarh is restored. Ho order as to costs. Trial Court is directed to regulated the turns of water on this well between the parties, so that they do not suffer in their irrigational rights.