(1.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Bhanwarlal and Ram Vilas plaintiffs filed a suit against Shri Uttam Chand and Shri Champa Lal under Sec. 91, 92-A, 188, 248 and 78 of the Tenancy Act for declaration and permanent injunction with the allegation that they were entitled to 1/3 of share in the water of the disputed well while the defendants were entitled to 2/3 of the share. It is alleged that the two parties entered into an agreement to install an electric motor pump in the well and to bear the installation and the running cost in the proportion of 1 : 2. It is further alleged that while the motor pump has been installed by the defendants, they are not now prepared to associate the plaintiffs with the use of the same, and that they are using the motor pump exclusively. It is averred that the motor pump sucks out in an hour as much quantity of water as. was brought out by the three Dhanas formerly.
(2.) THE following reliefs have therefore been sought: (1) To declare that the installation of the motor pump is an improvement in terms of Sec. 5 (19) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that the two parties own it in the proportion of 1:2. (2) To declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to extract water for one day and the defendants are entitled to extract water for two days and that they should share the cost of the pump in the same proportion. (3) To declare that the two parties are entitled to extract water through the motor pump in the proportion of 1:2. (4) To direct the defendants by permanent injunction to extract water in the manner sought in 1,2, 3 above and not to prohibit the plaintiffs from extracting the water through the motor pump as agreed to between the two parties. (5) To settle the accounts of the motor pump between the parties. (6) To impose the cost of the suit on the defendants. During the course of the trial, an application under Sec. 212 was filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from taking water in excess of their share. After hearing the parties, the trial court ordered the defendants not to use the motor pump. THE defendants filed an appeal against this order before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, who taking into consideration the quantum of the discharge of water by the pump ordered that the defendants be allowed to extract water from the well with the aid of the pump for 45 minutes per day, for two days out of three days, till the case was finally decided. Both the parties have come up in revision against this order. THE contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has erred in law in not maintaining the status quo and further that the execution of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is not practicable. THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the order or the Revenue Appellate Authority is likely to create constant bickering between the two parties. It is also contended that the suit is not maintainable in a revenue court. It is further urged that no injunction can be granted against a co-tenant.