SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDHIR AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
ANOOP SINGH AND OTHERS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

114

RSA-1753-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.02.2026

Sudhir and another

. . . . Appellants

Vs.

Anoop Singh and others

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CM-6054-C-2025

This is an application for condonation of delay of 98 days in

filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA-1753-2025 (O&M)

Defendants No.3 and 4 are before this Court by way of the

present Regular Second Appeal, assailing the concurrent judgments and

decrees passed by the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for

permanent injunction filed by Anoop Singh (respondent No.1) was decreed

by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 08.09.2017, and the appeal

preferred by the present appellants was dismissed by the learned First

Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2024.

2. The dispute pertains to an electric tube-well connection

installed over agricultural land, which admittedly was earlier owned by Ram

Lal, father of the plaintiff–respondent No.1; Dalip Singh, father of

defendants No.3 and 4 (appellants herein); and Bhoop Singh, whose legal

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.02.05 18:41

I agree to specified portions of

this document

Chandigarh

##PAGE2##

RSA-1753-2025 2026:PHHC:016643

heirs are impleaded as proforma defendants No.5 to 10. Upon the death of

Ram Lal, the three sons inherited the property in equal one-third shares.

3. During the lifetime of Ram Lal, a well was constructed in the

joint land situated in Rectangle No.38, Khasra No.22, and the electricity

connection was obtained in the name of Dalip Singh, solely on account of

the fact that he was serving in the Indian Army, and defence personnel

were accorded priority for release of electricity connections. Subsequently,

when the water level receded, a fresh bore was jointly installed and a 10-

BHP submersible motor was fitted, which was being used by all the co-

sharers in proportion to their respective shares.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that after the death of Dalip

Singh, defendants No.3 and 4, in collusion with the officials of the electricity

department, attempted to shift the electricity connection to a newly

constructed bore in the land allegedly fallen to their exclusive share,

thereby depriving the plaintiff and other co-sharers of their right to

irrigation. Consequently, the present suit for permanent injunction was

instituted to restrain such unilateral action.

5. The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the electric

connection was installed exclusively by their father Dalip Singh from his

own funds and that neither the plaintiff nor the proforma defendants had

any right, title or interest therein.

6. Upon framing of issues and appreciation of oral as well as

documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit. The

learned First Appellate Court, after re-appraisal of the entire evidence,

affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal.

7. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the

appellants has contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the

evidence in its correct perspective and wrongly held the electric tube-well

connection to be joint property.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.02.05 18:41

I th a isg r de oe c uto m s ep ne tcified portions of Page 2 of 4

Chandigarh

##PAGE3##

RSA-1753-2025 2026:PHHC:016643

8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced and has

perused the record with the able assistance of learned counsel. The

contention raised does not merit acceptance.

9. The learned First Appellate Court has returned well-reasoned

findings, noticing that the jamabandi (Ex.P-1) unequivocally establishes that

the entire agricultural land, including the land on which the electric tube-

well exists, continues to be joint and un-partitioned. It has further been

rightly noticed that though the electricity connection stood in the name of

Dalip Singh,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top