Concurrent findings of fact regarding the joint ownership of land and joint usage of a utility (tubewell), supported by revenue records and admissions, are sustainable and justify a decree for permanent injunction against interference.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri (hereinafter to be referred as “First Appellate Court”), whereby first appeal filed at the instance of appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), decreeing the suit for permanent injunction instituted at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering in the use and enjoyment of tubewell in question.

[2] Briefly stating, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, while claiming himself to be in joint possession with appellants-defendants over the land measuring 105 kanal 07 marla comprised in Khewat No. 65//33, Khatoni No.77 situated within the revenue estate of Village Nandha. It was further pleaded that a common tubewell with electricity connection in the name of appellant(s)-defendant(s) was installed on the land in question; half expenses of the same were incurred by the plaintiff and remaining half by the co-sharers and the plaintiff-respondent was using the said tubewell connection for irrigating his land, however, the appellants-defendants started interfering in the usage, thereby compelling him to file the suit for permanent injunction.

[2.1] Upon notice, the appellants-defendants appeared and disputed the version made in the plaint, while stating that the land was no more joint between the parties having been mutually partitioned and the parties were in their separate and exclusive possession. It was also pleaded that the tubewell was got installed in the property in question at the exclusive expenses of appellants-defendants and thus was never joint and accordingly, the plaintiff was having no right therein, however, was only allowed to use the same being close relative.

[3] On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the present suit is false and frivolous and defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

7. Relief. ”

[4] The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 19.09.2017, decreed the suit, filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, while holding that the land was still joint and the respondent-plaintiff was having right to use and enjoy the tubewell installed therein, thereby restraining the appellants-defendants from causing any kind of interference therein.

[5] Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-defendants filed the first appeal, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal.

[6] Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 11.02.2020 and 19.09.2017, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that once, it was established on record that the electricity connection and the tubewell in question was exclusively installed in the name of appellant No. 1-defendant No. 1 (Krishan Kumar