Co-Owner Cannot Block Plaintiff And Brother’s 2/3 Tubewell Water Use On Joint Land, P&H HC Upholds Decree

In brief

The question

Whether the plaintiff and his brother were entitled to draw water from the tubewell connection to the extent of a 2/3 share, having regard to their interests in the jointly owned land.

The court held

The Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s recognition of the plaintiff’s and his brother’s right to draw water to the extent of a 2/3 share and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal as devoid of merit.

It also directed

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The plaintiff claimed that, following inheritance and purchase of shares, he and his brother held a 2/3 share in tubewell connection No. B-159, while the defendants’ predecessor held the remaining 1/3 share.

¶ 2

He alleged that the defendants obstructed his use of the connection.

¶ 2

The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claimed share in the connection, asserting that the replacement tubewell had been installed at equal expense.

¶ 3

The Trial Court granted an injunction against obstruction but did not determine the parties’ respective shares. On the plaintiff’s appeal, the First Appellate Court declared his and his brother’s right to draw water to the extent of 2/3. Defendant No. 2 appealed to the High Court.

¶ 5–6, 6.1

02Issues

i.Whether the plaintiff and his brother were entitled to draw water from the tubewell connection to the extent of a 2/3 share, having regard to their interests in the jointly owned land.

¶ 6, 10

ii.Whether the First Appellate Court’s determination of that entitlement and the resulting decree warranted interference in the second appeal.

¶ 7–8, 10–10.1

03Law Applied

The Court stated that second appeals in Punjab and Haryana are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, rather than Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that no question of law need be framed; it relied on Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157, Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR v. Ram Parkash, (2019) 11 SCC 317, and Satender v. Saroj, 2022 (12) Scale 92.

¶ 7

The Court also applied the principle that co-owners’ use of a tubewell serving jointly owned agricultural land should correspond to their respective proprietary interests, subject to equitable use and without unjustifiably prejudicing another co-owner’s rights.

¶ 10–10.1

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The Court found that the tubewell connection had been installed for irrigation of jointly owned land and that the parties continued to hold co-ownership interests in that land.

¶ 10

It concluded that the plaintiff’s entitlement to draw water was properly assessed by reference to his 2/3 proprietary share, and that the First Appellate Court’s determination was supported by the record and was neither arbitrary nor legally unsustainable.

¶ 10

Given the need for equitable use of a finite resource, the appellant could not obstruct the plaintiff’s lawful use beyond the appellant’s own entitlement. The Court therefore found no ground to interfere in the appeal.

¶ 10.1