RSA No.3610 of 2017 (O&M) 1 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3610 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.03.2026 Satpal (now deceased) through LRs ....Appellant Versus Lalita Rani and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.4. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.3 is in second appeal. 2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance i.e., the appellant as 'defendant No.3', respondent No.1 as 'plaintiff' and respondents No.2 and 4 as 'defendants No.1 and 4'. 3. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that she is owner to the extent of 1/4 share in the electric tubewell connection bearing No.AP-31/288 and that defendants No.1 to 3 have no right, title or interest qua the share of the plaintiff in the electric tubewell connection. She further sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.06 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3610 of 2017 (O&M) 2 defendants No.3 and 4 from shifting/transferring tubewell connection illegally, forcibly without due course of law. 3.1. As per plaintiff, she purchased 16 Kanals of land from defendants No.1 and 2 vide Sale Deed, dated 27.01.2005 along with 1/4 share in tubewell connection with water installed in the joint land. As per plaintiff, the tubewell connection, in question, was installed by the father of defendants No.1 and 2 namely Ram Lal. Defendants No.1 to 3 have no right to transfer/shift the tubewell connection to their land to defeat the right of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/4 share in the tubewell connection and the water. 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement admitted that plaintiff purchased 16 Kanals of land vide sale deed, dated 27.01.2005 executed by them. However, they denied of having sold 1/4 share in the disputed tubewell connection in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants claimed that they sold entire tubewell connection in favour of defendant No.3 vide agreement to sell dated 14.01.2005 and that defendant No.3 is exclusive owner of the tubewell connection, in dispute. 4.1. Defendant No.3 by way of separate written statement asserted of having purchased the entire tubewell connection vide agreement to sell dated 14.01.2005 from defendants No.1 and 2. It is also claimed that defendants No.2 and 3 executed affidavit dated 14.01.2005 before Executing Magistrate, Gurdaspur admitting the fact of having sold the tubewell connection in favour of defendant No.3. He being exclusive owner in DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.06 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3610 of 2017 (O&M) 3 possession of the tubewell connection rightly applied for transfer of the same in his name following due procedure of law. 5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance, on the following Issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Relief.” 6. The Court of the First Instance answered Issue No.1 against the plaintiff holding that the tubewell connection having not been installed in the land purchased by her, she is not entitled for injunction. The Court accordingly, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. In the appeal preferred by plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Court of the First Instance. Relying upon the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, dated 27.01.2005 (Exhibit P-1), the Court found that the plaintiff successfully proved transfer of 1/4 share in the tubewell connection. Sale Deed dated 27.01.2005 (Exhibit P-1), executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, is prior in time to the sale deed dated 12.01.2006 (Exhibit D-2) executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3. Defendants No.1 and 2 thus after selling the land and their 1/4 share in tubewell connection in favour of plaintiff, could not have sold the entire connection in favour of defendant No.3. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.06 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3610 of 2017 (O&M) 4 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. 9. Facts are not much in dispute. 9.1. It is matter of record that defendants No.1 and 2 sold 1/4 share in tubewell connection along with share in the joint land in favour of plaintiff vide Exhibit P-1, dated 27.01.2005. Tubewell is the only source of irrigation for joint land. Whether it is plaintiff or it is defendant No.3, both need tubewell connection for irrigation purpose. Once plaintiff was sold share in the tubewell connection along with share in the joint land, subsequent sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 by defendants No.1 and 2 would not entitle defendant No.3 to defeat the prior right of plaintiff to the extent of 1/4 share in the electric tubewell connection. 9.2. The learned Lower Appellate Court thus rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in part granting decree of declaration in her favour that she is entitled to use electric tubewell connection to the extent of 1/4 share, and rightly granted decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.3 from interfering in the right of the plaintiff over the same. 9.3. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off. March 13, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.06 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document