JUDGMENT :- This is a second appeal against the order dated August 28, 1965, of Shri T.N. Saxena, III Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing the appeal of the appellants after confirming the decree of the trial court.

2. The dispute between the parties related to a nali; a rasta and a pulia detailed in the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was that they used to irrigate their fields from the nali aforesaid but the defendants without any right had demolished that nali and raised certain constructions over it, with the result that plaintifs, Nos. 1 to 3 were deprived of their right of irrigating their fields. It was also alleged that the rasta in dispute was a common rasta which was enjoyed by the plaintiffs also but the defendants without any right had narrowed that rasta by making constructions over it. It was further alleged that the defendants without any right had demolished the pulia in dispute which had resulted in damage to the plaintiffs. On these allegations the plaintiffs claimed possession over the aforesaid nali and rasta and wanted the defendants to restore the status quo ante. They also wanted restoration of the pulia. They further wanted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of the use of the nali, rasta and pulia. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 claimed Rs. 200/- each as damages from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 or other defendants found liable while plaintiff No. 3 claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 20/- from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 or other defendants found liable.

3. The suit was filed against the present appellants defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the present respondents Nos. 4 to 32.

4. The suit was contested by defendant No. 2 alone. His defence was that the defendants had not demolished any nali or pulia as alleged in the plaint nor had the defendants narrowed any rasta of the plaintiffs. It was also alleged that the nali in dispute had been demolished by the Consolidation authorities and the State of U. P. was a necessary party. The jurisdiction of the trial court was also challenged and it was further pleaded that none of the plaintiffs was entitled to any amount of damages.

5. The trial court after taking evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further held that plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to prove that the defendants had demolished any rasta or pulia or they had curtailed or narrowed down any rasta. It was further held that the State of U. P. was not a necessary party to the suit and the plaintiffs had failed to make out any case of damages. On these findings the trial court decreed the suit with respect to the restoration of the nali and dismissed the rest of the claim.

6. Against the above decree defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the present appellants, filed an appeal in the Court below while plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed a cross-objection against the portion of the aforesaid decree which had dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Count below confirmed all the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals of defendants-appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and the cross-objection of plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

7. Against that order the appellants-defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have come up in second appeal before me.

8. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents to contest this appeal.

9. I have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants alone. After going through the record and giving the matter my anxious consideration I have come to the conclusion that the decree of the lower appellate Court cannot be interfered with.

10. The first contention raised before me was that it has not been proved in the case that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had suffered any substantial damage and, therefore, no decree should have been passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document