Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU
Kanshi Ram – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Lal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court analyzes ownership and public access regarding a well in disputed land. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Kanshi Ram, defendant no. 4/appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.02.1998 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff– Krishan Lal was allowed, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court, which had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Brief Facts
2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he is owner in possession of a plot, marked as Bara, ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan, situated in village Bakhra, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. It was pleaded that about four years prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had constructed a well at a cost of Rs.30,000/- on the suit land, which is owned and possessed by him. The well had been constructed to provide drinking water to the inhabitants of the village. The grievance of the plaintiff was that due to political rivalry, the defendants, particularly Om Prakash, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who had no concern with the disputed well,
Permanent injunction cannot be granted to protect any unlawful construction obstructing public land.
A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the defendant admits the plaintiff's title and possession.
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
Point of law ; If the suit site is bifurcated from the suit well, the plaintiff cannot reach the suit well. The suit site is meant for enjoyment of the well and without the suit site one cannot go to....
Concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse.
Defendants have no manner of right to contaminate or reduce the utility of the well water to the detriment of the plaintiff.
A plaintiff seeking an injunction must establish personal interest in the property; lack of such interest negates the right to equitable relief.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
