IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-11.11.2025 Malkiat Singh … Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh and Another ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate with Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant/defendant impugning the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below, whereby the suits instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs were decreed. The appellant challenges the legal and factual conclusions recorded by the trial and first- appellate fora and seeks reversal of the concurrent findings insofar as they uphold the plaintiffs’ title, possession and consequential reliefs granted by the two courts below.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants, or assigns from causing any manner of obstruction, interference, or hindrance in the plaintiffs’ peaceful use, possession, and enjoyment of the joint well, electric motor, and tube-well installed in the joint agricultural land bearing Khewat No. 18/15 min, Khatoni No. 31, Khasra No. 370, as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, situated within the revenue estate of village Hazipur, F.B. No. 250, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.

2.1. It was averred that the said well and electric installation constituted a common source of irrigation for the joint agricultural holdings, and that the defendant, without lawful authority, had sought to obstruct the plaintiffs’ longstanding and legitimate use thereof. Consequently, the plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction to protect their co-ownership and possessory rights. They further prayed that the defendant be restrained from obstructing the irrigation of their land measuring 48 Kanals out of joint land measuring 137 Kanals 6 Marlas, bearing Khewat Nos. 14/12, 15/13, 17/15 min, and 18/15 min (as per Jamabandi 2014–15), through the existing kacha drains from the joint well, and from disconnecting, shifting, or tampering with the electric connection or water supply system attached thereto. Hence, the suit.

3. Upon service of summons, the appellant/defendant entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement, vehemently contesting the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs. It was asserted that the electric connection, motor, and tube-well installed in Khasra No. 370 were exclusively conceived, financed, and installed by the father of the appellant, solely for his individual agricultural use, without any contribution monetary or otherwise from the plaintiffs or their predecessors. The defendant further averred that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of an independent bore-well situated in Khasra No. 389, forming part of the ancestral holding falling to their exclusive share (‘hissedari’) upon mutual partition effected among the forefathers of both lineages. Pursuant to such partition, it was contended, each family branch has remained in separate, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of its demarcated share, exercising independent ownership and possession rights thereto.

3.1. In view of this admitted and longstanding separation of possession and enjoyment, the appellant categorically denied the existence of any joint ownership, joint user, or common rights in respect of the tube-well, electric motor, or water supply system situated in Khasra No. 370. Accordingly, it was urged that the respondents/plaintiffs have no enforceable legal or equitable claim to the use or enjoyment of the said installation, and that the suit was misconceived, legally untenable, and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a replication, expressly denying the assertions set forth in the written statement and reaffirming th