RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) Reserved on : 03.04.2025 Date of Decision : 07.04.2025 GOPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER …..Appellants Vs BAWA DASS AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The suit for permanent injunc%on filed by Gopal Singh and Gurdeep Singh (appellants herein) against Bawa Dass and others (respondents herein) was dismissed by Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur, on 21.03.2016. Their appeal was also dismissed by Ld. Addi%onal District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 04.05.2019. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the appellants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 2. In order to avoid confusion, par%es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3.1 Plain%ffs claimed to be co-sharers in disputed khasra Nos.231/1 and 231/2 as per details given in head note of plaint. According to them, there is an old religious WELL known by the name of ‘Baba Bharthari Wala’ in the above said land since %me immemorial, which is being used by the inhabitants of the Village. Par%%on order dated 04.10.1985 in respect of Khasra No.231 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hoshiarpur was challenged by Gopal Singh and BachiAar Singh (i.e. plainff No.1 and predecessor of plainff No.2) by filing a Civil Suit in 1986, which was decided on 14.10.1988 on the basis of compromise, as statement was made by defendant-Bawa Dass for himself and his brother that WELL in ques%on is a common well and that he Page 1 of 6 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) will execute the giD deed or sale deed in respect thereof. It was further alleged that defendants have no right to obstruct the plain%ffs or anybody else in drawing water from the said WELL. Temple of Baba Bharthari is located at some distance from the well and water for the temple is taken through suc%on pipe from the WELL with the help of motor since long %me. As the land of plain%ffs is adjoining to the WELL, they also draw the water from the well through suc%on pipe to take to their land, where they have installed a hand pump. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and other villagers also used WELL for drawing water through their water pump, but defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are threatening the plain%ffs to remove their suc%on pipe from the common well. It was also the allega%ons of the plain%ffs that they were summoned to the Police Sta%on, where they were forced to sign some blank papers and direc%on was given to them to get the property demarcated. 3.2 With these allega%ons, plain%ffs prayed for decree of permanent injunc%on to restrain the defendants from making any hindrance in the use of water from the common well or from removing the suc%on pipe/delivery pipe of the water pump installed in the said WELL by plain%ffs or other inhabitants of the Village. 4. Defendants N: 1 & 2 opposed the suit by submiFng that khasra No.231 was bifurcated by way of order the dated 04.10.1985 of Assistant Collector First Grade, Hoshiarpur into two parts i.e. khasra No.231/1 and khasra No. 231/2. Khasra No.231/1 came to the share of Nathu Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plain%ffs; whereas khasra No.231/2, in which the WELL in ques%on exists, came to the share of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Muta%on No.1508 was sanc%oned in this regard, which was also incorporated in the revenue record. It is alleged that plain%ffs forcibly put pipe in the well of the defendants in 2009 and when the same was removed by the defendants, plain%ffs raised dispute. Compromise was effected before the Gram Panchayat, as per which plain%ffs were to get the disputed Khasras demarcated and it was decided that if a well is found to be in khasra No.231/2, it will vest with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in case well is found to be khasra No.231/1, it will be go to the plain%ffs. The said demarca%on was to be got conducted within 15 Page 2 of 6 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) days. However, plain%ffs failed to do so and thus, did not comply with the compromise and rather, filed the present suit. The defendants further submiAed that they are not bound by the statement made earlier on 14.10.1988 in view of the subsequent compromises dated 12.09.2009 and 20.01.2010. With these submissions, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 5. Defendants Nos.3 to 6 supported the stand of the plain%ffs. 6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par%es was taken on record. Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the findings as returned by it were endorsed by the Appellate Court. 7. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants-plain%ffs that in the earlier li%ga%on of 1986 between the par%es, defendants had acknowledged the WELL in ques%on to the common well and it is on the basis of their statement that the previous suit was withdrawn and therefore, defendants cannot claim the WELL in dispute to be owned by them. Learned counsel contends further that both the Courts below have ignored the compromise of the previous suit and wrongly dismissed the suit. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contes%ng respondents-defendants Nos.1 and 2 point out towards the revenue record and the other evidence produced before the trial Court to content that khasra No.231/2, wherein the WELL exists, had come to the share of defendants in the par%%on proceedings and so, plain%ffs have no right whatsoever therein. It is also contended that there is no scope for interference in the concurrent findings of the facts as recorded by the Courts below. With these submissions, prayer is made for dismissal of the appeal. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. 10. Perusal of the judgment of the Courts below to be read with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, copies of which have been made available on record by counsel for the appellants, would reveal that in Page 3 of 6 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) jamabandi for the year 1978-1979 Ex-DW-4 (Annexure A-5 herein), khasra No.231 (0-9) is shown to be jointly owned by Nathu Ram son of Sukhraj to the extent of ½ share; and Gujjar son of Kalu to the extent of remaining ½ share. The nature of land is men%oned as “Gair Mumkin Chahi Pukhta Abnoshi”. The next jamabandi for the year 1983-84 Ex.DW-5 (Annexure A-6 herein) would reveal that same entries are carried therein as in the previous jamabandi, but there is a reference of muta%on No. 1508 in the remarks column to indicate that khasra No.231 was par%%oned and that khasra No.231/1 came to the share of Nathu Ram, and khasra No.231/2 came to the share of Bawa Dass & Gurdass Singh sons of Gujjar. Mark ‘A’ (Annexure A-14) is the copy of order passed by Assistant Collector First Garde, Hoshiarpur on 04.10.1985 along with copy of field book and other documents, which were produced during par%%on proceedings regarding the aforesaid par%%on. It is further relevant to men%on that khasra No.231/1, which had come to the share of predecessor of plain%ffs is shown as ‘baran’; whereas, khasra No.231/2 which came to the share of defendants is shown as “Gair Mumkin Chah Abnoshi”, thus clearly indica%ng that the WELL exists in khasra No.231/2 and the same had come to the share of defendants Nos.1 & 2. 11. It is revealed further that by filing Civil Suit No.368 of 1986, Gopal Singh, BachiAar Singh and Ranjan Singh sons of Nathu Ram (i.e. plainff No.1 and predecessor of plainff No.2) sought decree of declara%on that they were co-owner in possession of khasra No.231 and further prayed for seFng aside the par%%on order dated 04.10.1985. During those proceedings, Bawa Dass (defendant No.1) for himself and on behalf of his brother, made statement on 14.10.1988, translated copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure A-7, which was produced during evidence as Ex.P1, which reads as under:- “That my well in dispute is situated in village Dandoh and its area is 2 karam wide and 2 ½ karma in length and which is in khasra No.231/2 and the above said area along with masonry cylinder of well and the surrounding area leD for well and I will execute the giD deed or sale deed regarding the well, which is ‘Share-am (common well) by going to Bhunga and I will remain bound with this statement.” Page 4 of 6 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) ADer the aforesaid statement, the above said Civil Suit No.368 of 1986 was dismissed as withdrawn. 12. 12. It is on the basis of above said statement made by defendant No.1 Bawa Dass for himself and his brother that plain%ffs claim that WELL in dispute was common well and so, defendants are liable to be restrained from crea%ng any hindrance in the user of the said well. 13. I am afraid that the conten%on is devoid of any merit. As per the par%%on proceedings, khasra No.231/2 had come to the share of defendants No.1 and 2, in which the well in ques%on is located. Though, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had undertaken to execute the giD deed or sale deed regarding the said well by trea%ng it as a common well and by going to Bhunga, but there is nothing on record to show that in compliance of the said statement, any giD deed or sale deed was ever executed by the defendants. It is not even clear as to in whose favour, the sale deed or giD deed was to be executed. In case, plain%ffs wanted to claim any right on the basis of statement of defendants as above, they were required to get it implemented, but simply on the basis of statement, plain%ffs cannot deny the %tle and possession of the defendants in the WELL in dispute. 14. Apart from above, evidence on record reveals further that dispute arose between the par%es regarding the well, when plain%ffs had put pipes in the well, which were removed by the defendants. MaAer was taken to the Panchayat and it was agreed on 12.09.2009 before the Gram Panchayat, Dandoh vide Ex.D-2 that Gurdeep Singh son of BachiAar Singh i.e. one of the plain%ffs will get the demarca%on of disputed khasra numbers conducted and in the mean%me the pipe, which was removed by Bawa Dass etc., shall be kept intact. Both the par%es were asked to deposit the expenses in advance and that the party, who is found to be wrong, will have to ul%mately reimburse the expenses to the other party. 15. As the evidence would reveal that plain%ffs did not make compliance of the above seAlement. Dispute again arose and maAer was seAled on 20.01.2010 before the Gram Panchayat vide Ex.D-1 and the Page 5 of 6 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5624-2019 (O&M) compromise was effected, wherein it was again decided that Gurdeep Singh will get the demarca%on conducted of land falling in khasra Nos.231/1 and 231/2 within 15 days and that in whose share the well comes, will be owner of the same. It was further decided that if demarca%on was not got conducted, then Bawa Dass i.e. defendant No.1 will have the full right to remove the pipes as installed in the well. 16. Again plain%ffs failed to get the land demarcated. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when khasra No.231 was already par%%oned and khasra No.231/2 had come to the share of the defendants and well was found to be located therein and then when plain%ff raised dispute, they did not get the Khasras demarcated as per the compromise effected between them before the Gram Panchayat, it does not lie in the mouth of plain%ffs to assert any right in the WELL so as to install or put any pipe therein. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that Courts below have not commiAed any error in coming to the conclusion that plain%ffs were not en%tled for decree of injunc%on as sought by them. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, in the absence of any illegality or perversity. Holding the appeal to be meritless, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.04.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 6 of 6 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.07 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document