SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Raj) 92

MODI
Girdhar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gokul – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N M. Kasliwal and Dilipsingh, for appallants; R.N. Surolia, for Respondents

MODI, J.— This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respon-dents for injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to irrigate their fields bearing Khasra Nos. 390, 390/1, 391/2, 392/1, 392/2 and 407 situate at village Dantri from the well bearing Khasra No. 389.

2. The plaintiffs case is that they have been irrigating their fields with the water drawn from the well bearing Khasra No. 389 for more than 100 years as of right and without interruption. It is not in dispute that the said well is owned by the defendants. Formerly too, it was owned by the defendants and their ancestors in the capacity of their being Jagirdars of village Dantri. The defence of the defendants is that the irrigation of the plaintiffs fields from the said well was permissive and in lieu of certain payment made by the plaintiffs. Both the courts below on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondents have been irrigating their fields form the water drawn from the said well for a period of more than 45-50 years and further that they paid no amount to the defendants for using the water






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top