140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3113 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 BALJIT SINGH ....Appellant Versus SEWA SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Defendant/appellant has preferred present Regular Second Appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Payal, vide which suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by plaintiffs/respondents was partly decreed with costs. Defendants are further aggrieved by dismissal of their appeal vide impugned judgment dated 25.07.2025, by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby appeal preferred by defendant/appellant was also dismissed. Appellant has preferred appeal against the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts.

2. Plaintiffs/Respondents vide their suit for declaration and permanent injunction claimed that previously defendant No.3-Darshan Singh son of Gurdial Singh was owner of 34 kanal 11 marla, duly described in the plaint. It is the case of plaintiffs that Darshan Singh along with other defendants were co-sharers in the suit land which also had electricity and tubewell connection bearing No.F351. The electricity connection was in the name of Gurdial Singh father of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3-Darshan Singh sold land measuring 34 kanal 11 marla to plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated 15.06.2006 along with rights in electricity connection, kotha, bore, pahi, khal etc. along with rights to the extent of half share with rights appurtenant thereto.

3. It was the case of plaintiffs that electricity connection is the only source of irrigation for the land and same is attached to the joint land and amenities in the shape of electricity and tubewell connection along with irrigation channels are joint and plaintiffs have complete right to use the said common amenities. It is asserted that plaintiffs have been using the same and have been sharing maintenance and running costs of electricity as per their share. It is asserted that though defendant No.2 is shown to be co-sharer in the electricity motor, but in a family settlement, he had relinquished his share in favour of defendants No.1 and 3 as he is irrigating his land through another motor connection. It is asserted that now defendants No.1 to 3 are threatening the plaintiffs that they shall not allow plaintiffs to irrigate their land through electricity connection which is joint and accordingly, suit was preferred.

4. Defendants had taken number of preliminary objections as regards to locus standi, plaintiffs having not approached the Court with clean hands, that property was not rightly described, estoppel, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, lack of jurisdiction and the fact that the suit is not properly stamped.

5. On merits, it is admitted that electricity connection is in the name of Gurdial Singh father of defendant No.3 who had died leaving three sons namely, Baljit Singh, Baldev Singh and Darshan Singh (defendants No.1 to 3). It was stated that Darshan Singh was not owner of electricity connection, therefore he was neither competent to sell nor had sold the same. It is asserted that Gurdial Singh had transferred the land measuring 10 kanal 10 marla along with electricity motor connection bearing account number F-351 of 20 HP in favour of his son, Baljit Singh vide transfer deed dated 17.07.2006 and had also transferred the possession of said land along with electricity motor connection and since then it is Baljit Singh who is owner in possession of land as well as electricity/bore connection and all other appliances attached with the electricity connection. Therefore, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the said electric connection/motor. It is asserted that plaintiffs have purchased another piece of land measuring 29 kanal 17 marla along with