JUDGMENT

Mr. H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral):- Plaintiffs – Richhpal Singh and Gurmukh Singh, had brought a suit against defendants Sultan Singh and his sons, Hans Raj, Bhim Sain and Ranjit, craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into and dismantling the watercourse of outlet RD-28835/R of Ellenabad Distributory, passing through khewat No. 2433, khatuni No. 3316 Rect. No.83, Killa No. 23 (0-9), Killa No. 24 (0-9), Killa No. 25 (0-9), situated at village Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.

2. As per case of the plaintiffs, they alongwith their brother and father are owners in possession of the land comprised in khewat No. 2433, khatuni No. 3316, Rect. No. 83, 84, 85, and 86, situated at village Ellenabad. The plaintiffs are irrigating their land from watercourse from outlet RD-28835-R of Ellenabad Distributory. The said watercourse passes through the land comprised in khewat No. 2433, khatuni No.3316 Rect. No. 83, Killa No. 23, 24 and 25 and the same is constructed over total land measuring 27 marlas to the extent of 9 marlas of each killa numbers detailed above. This is so reflected in the revenue record even plaintiff No.2 Gurmukh Singh, is also irrigating fields in the similar manner. Tubewell of defendants as well as room for tube well are in existence on the spot and a transformer have also been installed for the tubewell. The defendants threatened to dismantle the watercourse to which they had no right. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs brought the suit in question.

3. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi of plaintiffs to bring the suit in question, the suit being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; the plaintiffs being estopped by their act and conduct for bringing the suit etc.

4. On merits defendants contended that Richhpal Singhplaintiff No.1 is not owner of the land comprised in khasra No.83 ratherSurjit Kaur w/o Alvail Singh is owner of that land. Plainiff No.2 Gurmukh Singh s/o Pirthi Singh is recorded as owner of land comprised in square No. 83, killa No. 10/2 (4-16), 11/1 (6-16), 12/1 (7-7) and defendants are owners in possession of land comprised in square No. 83, killa No. 23 to 25, alongwith other land; that there is no sanctioned watercourse in square No. 83, as the land comprised in square No.83 is owned and possessed by the defendants, to the extent of their respective shares and they are in exclusive possession of the same; that plaintiffs have got prepared some false revenue record in connivance with certain anti social elements, just to grab land of the defendants; that there is sanctioned watercourse of the land which is running and no watercourse is in existence in killa No. 23, 24 and 25 of square No.83, as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendants craved for dismissal of the suit.

5. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting allegations in the written statement, whereas reiterating the submission made in the plaint.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped to file the present suit by its own act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Court? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

7. Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 25 of Haryana Canal & Drainage Act? OPD

8. Relief.

7. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 Richhpal Singh as PW-1, Kulwant Singh Patwari as PW-2 and produced documentary evidence on r