Mangat Ram vs Jit Ram & Anr

RSA-108-2016 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-108-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
MANGAT RAM
… Appellant
Versus
JIT RAM AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 proceeded
ex-parte vide order dated 15.07.2016 .
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The appellant-defendant No. 2 has preferred the present
Regular Second Appeal (‘RSA’ for short), assailing the judgment and
decree dated 29.10.2015 passed by the District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar, which partly modified the judgment and decree dated
19.01.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar. The appellant seeks setting aside of both judgments and
decrees and dismissal of the suit, contending that the impugned decisions
suffer from manifest errors of law, perversity and misappreciation of the
evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Digitally signed by GAURAV
SOROT
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:13
+05'30'
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
GAURAV
SOROT

RSA-108-2016 (O&M) -:2:-
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff instituted
the suit asserting that his father, Des Raj, held tubewell connection No. B-
159 over jointly owned land. Upon inheritance and purchase of the shares
of Babu Ram’s legal heirs on 20.08.1990, the plaintiff and his brother
acquired a 2/3 share in the connection, while the defendants retained a
rd
1/3 share through their predecessor, Karam Chand. Alleging obstruction
by the defendants in exercising his co-ownership rights, the plaintiff
sought the requisite relief.
3. The defendants contested the suit on grounds of
maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties, while admitting the
rd
respective 1/3 shares of Karam Chand, Des Raj and Babu Ram and
rd
succession thereto. They disputed the plaintiff’s 2/3 share in the tubewell
connection, asserting equal co-ownership, as the original tubewell was
jointly installed in 1982, sold in 2005, and replaced in 2006 at equal
expense. Accordingly, they sought dismissal of the suit.
4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record,
the Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication:-
rd
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner to the extent of 2/3 in the motor
connection in dispute? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?
OPD
6. Relief.
Digitally signed by GAURAV
SOROT
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:13
+05'30'
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
GAURAV
SOROT

RSA-108-2016 (O&M) -:3:-
5. Both parties were afforded due opportunity to adduce
evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial and consideration of the rival
submissions, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs, restraining the
defendants from obstructing the plaintiff’s use of the tubewell connection
for irrigating his land, except in accordance with law.
6. Although the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent
injunction, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, aggrieved by its failure to
determine the respective shares of the parties in the use of tube-well
connection. While the Trial Court considered adjudication of title
unnecessary in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff contended that
determination of the parties’ respective shares was essential to ascertain
their entitlement to draw water from the joint tube-well connection. The
First Appellate Court accepted this contention, observing that a decree
permitting use of the tube-well, without specifying the extent of such
entitlement, would remain incomplete and ineffective. Accordingly, while
substantially affirming the findings of the Trial Court, the First Appellate
Court partly allowed the appeal and declared the right of the plaintiff,
along with his brother, to draw water from the tube-well connection to the
rd
extent of 2/3 share .
6.1. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the First Appellate
Court, appellant-defendant No. 2 has preferred the present Regular Second
Appeal. Upon admission of the appeal, notice was issued to the
respondents, who entered appearance through counsel and contested the
appeal, whereas respondent No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte vide
Digitally signed by GAURAV
SOROT
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:14
+05'30'
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
GAURAV
SOROT

RSA-108-2016 (O&M) -:4:-
order dated 15.07.2016. The records of the Courts below were
requisitioned for examination and consideration.
7. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled
proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred
are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918 and not under Section 100 CPC. Reference in this regard can be
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi
(Dead) through LRs and others Vs. Chandrika and others, (2016)6
SCC 157 , followed by the judgments in the case of Kirodi (since
deceased) through his LR Vs. Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC
317 and Satender and others Vs. Saroj and others, 2022(12) Scale 92 .
Relying upon the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no question of
law is required to be framed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 2 contended
that both Courts below had misappreciated the evidence on record and
failed to accord due weight to the material establishing the appellants’
claim of ½ share in the tube-well connection. It was argued that the
purchase bills pertaining to its installation demonstrated that the expenses
had been jointly borne by the parties. Learned counsel further submitted
that, in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the Courts below ought
to have confined their adjudication to possession rather than delving into
the question of title. Accordingly, it was urged that the impugned
judgments and decrees be set aside and the suit filed by the respondents-
plaintiffs be dismissed.
Digitally signed by GAURAV
SOROT
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:14
+05'30'
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
GAURAV
SOROT

RSA-108-2016 (O&M) -:5:-
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff
defended the findings of the First Appellate Court, contending that the
right to draw water from a tube-well installed for the benefit of jointly
owned property must correspond to the respective proprietary shares of the
parties. It was submitted that the First Appellate Court had rightly
recognised the respondent-plaintiff’s entitlement to draw water to the
extent of share and restrained the appellant-defendants from interfering
⅔
with the exercise of that right. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal was
sought.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinized the paper-book, this Court
finds no justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the First
Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that the tube-well connection was
jointly installed by the parties for the irrigation of the jointly owned land,
over which they continue to hold co-ownership rights. In such
circumstances, the entitlement of the parties to draw water through the
tube-well must be assessed in the context of their respective proprietary
shares in the land served by the said facility. The First Appellate Court,
having regard to the respondent-plaintiff’s ownership rights, has rightly
recognized his entitlement to draw water to the extent of his ⅔ share. The
said determination is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the material on
record; rather, it proceeds on a rational and legally sustainable basis,
commensurate with the respective interests of the parties in the jointly
owned property.
Digitally signed by GAURAV
SOROT
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:15
+05'30'
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
GAURAV
SOROT

RSA-108-2016 (O&M) -:6:-
10.1. It is equally pertinent to observe that water is an indispensable
yet finite natural resource, warranting judicious utilization and equitable
distribution amongst those legally entitled to its use. The right to draw
water through a tube-well installed for the benefit of jointly owned
agricultural land cannot be exercised so as to unjustifiably prejudice or
curtail the corresponding rights of the other co-owners. Conversely, a co-
owner whose proprietary interest is limited to a particular share cannot
claim an unrestricted right to interfere with the lawful exercise of the
rights of another co-owner beyond what is warranted by his own
entitlement. Accordingly, the appellant-defendant, whose interest in the
land is limited to his respective share, cannot be permitted to obstruct the
respondent-plaintiff from drawing water through the tube-well to the
extent of the latter’s established entitlement. The findings recorded by the
First Appellate Court are, therefore, well-founded, legally sustainable and
free from any illegality or material infirmity warranting interference in the
present appeal. No substantial ground has been made out to disturb the
impugned judgments and decrees. Consequently, the present appeal, being
devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
11. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom shall stand
disposed of accordingly. No further orders are warranted in this regard.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
02.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
Digitally signed by GAURAV
SOROT
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:16
+05'30'
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
GAURAV
SOROT