IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 12 OF APRIL, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 19 of 2001 BETWEEN:-

AMBARAM S/O MOHANLAL BALAI, AGED: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VILLAGE KANJA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI ASHOK SHANKAR KUTUMBALE - LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING ALONG WITH SHRI B.S. GANDHI - ADVOCATE.)

AND

1. ROOPSINGH S/O DEVISINGH RAJPUT, AGED: 53 YEARS, 2. RATANSINGH S/O DEVISINGH RAJPUT, AGED: 48 YEARS, 3. KARANSINGH @ KANHAIYALAL S/O DEVISINGH RAJPUT, AGED: 31 YEARS, 4. GORDHANSINGH S/O DEVISINGH RAJPUT, AGED: 38 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4:

ALL AGRICULTURISTS, R/O: VILLAGE KANJA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SHAJAPUR, 5.

DISTRICT SHAJPAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE PRESENT.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH HEARD AND RESERVED ON: 08.04.2024 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.04.2024 ______________________________________________________________________________

This appeal coming on for judgment this day, the court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

The appellant – plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the Code) challenging judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 in Civil Appeal No.37-A of 2000 passed by learned District Judge, Shajapur, District Shajapur (M.P.) whereby judgment and decree dated 29.07.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.54-A of 1992 by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Shajapur, District Shajapur (M.P.) in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside and the suit has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in short are, as under: -

2.1 Rahiman Bagem W/o Mohammad Bashir Khan and Muneer Ahmed S/o Mohammad Bashir Khan were the owner of land bearing Survey No.788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 393 and 810, total area 3.063 hectare situated at Village Barwal, Halka No.34, Tehsil and District Shajapur (M.P.). Vide registered sale-deed dated 02.07.1985, Gangabai widow of Bherulal purchased 1.531 hectare land of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH aforesaid survey numbers in total consideration of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) and ½ part of the well, electric motor and pipe line. The plaintiff also purchased 1.531 hectare land of the aforesaid survey numbers on the same day vide registered sale-deed dated 02.07.1985 in Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand only)

with ½ (half) share in the well, electric pump and water pipeline.

2.2 According to the plaintiff, after the aforesaid sale-deeds, he and Gangabai, both, were drawing water from the said well and paying the electricity charges at the ratio of ½ (half) and ½ (half). According to the plaintiff, Gangabai maliciously vide registered sale-deed dated 26.04.1991 sold the land 1.531 hectare of Survey No.791, 792, 793 and 810 along with complete well, electric motor and pipeline to defendants in Rs.80,000/- (rupees eighty thousand only) and now on 25.05.1992, the defendants have removed the pipeline from the well which gave a cause of action for filing the civil suit.

2.3 After notice, the defendants filed written statement by submitting that the plaintiff has no right and title on the well. The well is situated in the part of Survey No.791 which was in the ownership of Gangabai and thereafter they purchased the same from Gangabai. The plaintiff used to draw water from the well with the permission of Gangabai and which has come to end after sale of this well to them.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH

2.4 The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking temporary injunction to draw water from the well. Vide order dated 09.10.1992, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Civil Court. Thereafter, again an application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which came to be