JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

Plaintiff-appellant (Sewa Singh) assails the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Pehowa, vide which the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff appellant was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Plaintiff (Sewa Singh) filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants (Raghbir Singh and Deepak Kumar) from interfering in the peaceful usage of his electricity connection. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is co-owner in land comprised in Khewat No.104, Khatoni No.138, measuring 102 kanal 14 marla, situated within the revenue estate of Jakhwal, Sub-Teshil Ismailbad, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, as per Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). It was averred that the defendants were also co-owners in the suit property and the same had not been partitioned. It was averred that the plaintiff had installed a tubewell connection on the boundary of Killa No.17 and 18 and that he was in cultivating possession of the said Killas. The electricity connection was obtained by the plaintiff in the name of his father. It was averred that the defendants had no concern with the said tubewell connection and in a false complaint lodged by the defendants, his signatures were obtained by the defendants on blank papers and the said papers were misused by them to grab the connection. Despite the defendants having been requested not to interfere in the usage of the said connection, they did not pay heed as a result of which the suit was filed.

4. The defendants opposed the suit and filed their joint written statement. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections with regard to locus standi, lack of cause of action, the suit being not maintainable and that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands etc. were raised. It was admitted that the plaintiff and defendants were co-owners and they were in possession of Killa Nos.17 and 24. It was also admitted that the tubewell connection was installed on the boundary of Killa No.17 and 24. It was further admitted that the suit property was not partitioned and the parties were cultivating it as per their respective shares. It was averred that the tubewell/electricity connection was obtained jointly by the parties about 15 years ago and they had equally borne the expenses. It was averred that the connection was obtained in the name of the father of the plaintiff, as they had a common ancestor. It was averred that in the month of September, 2018, a quarrel took place amongst the parties and the matter was reported to the Police. On the intervention of respectables of the village, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The plaintiff also furnished an affidavit dated 04.09.2018 stating that the parties would have equal share in the tubewell connection and that they would jointly use the water. On merits also, the same stand was taken. A counter claim was also filed by the defendants for restraining the plaintiff from interfering in their peaceful usage of the electricity connection.

5. Replication was filed, in which the contents of the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

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

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction? OPP

2. Whether present suit is not maintainable in present form? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing present suit by his own act, conduct etc. ?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed t