RARUHA SINGH Vs. ACHAL SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on March 24,1960

RARUHA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
ACHAL SINGH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SHRIMANGAL SEN VS. SHMT MINA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1969-4-17] [REFERRED]
IB B BINDAL VS. BANARSI DAS GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-1981-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. RAM RAKSHPAL [LAWS(ALL)-1979-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAN DEVI VS. DURGA DASS [LAWS(HPH)-1996-1-3] [REFERRED]
YARAKARAJU APPAMMA VS. NAGARAJU SUBBAYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1983-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
KURUMALI KOTESWARA RAO VS. D GANGAMRNA [LAWS(APH)-1994-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P VS. M A RAZACK [LAWS(APH)-2004-2-134] [REFERRED TO]
KANTI CHANDRA BANERJEE VS. PRANATI SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-1962-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINI MIRCHANDANI VS. K L M ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES [LAWS(CAL)-1982-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
BHADRESWAR PANDIT VS. PUSPA RANI PANDIT [LAWS(CAL)-1991-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL VS. YUSUF ALI [LAWS(MPH)-1969-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
BHAI SIRI RAM SINGH VS. S SANTOKH SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1962-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
CHELA MERI VS. MOHAMMAD ABUL KHAIR KHAN [LAWS(PAT)-1976-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
HASAN ALI VS. HAFIZ MUSTAK ALI [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO CHAND CHAUDHARY ALIAS SHEOCHAN CHAUDHARY VS. ADALAT HUSSAIN [LAWS(PAT)-2003-4-30] [REFFERRED TO]
KISHAN LAL VS. ADJ NO 2 [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH TECH ORGANISATION VS. ADDI DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-105] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND DEVI VS. KANHAIYA LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-111] [REFERRED TO]
SHEOJI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL PATHARIYA VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-120] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL MODI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. CAPTAIN DILIP SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
BANSHI LAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-140] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSWAROOP VS. CHARANJEET SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
NASIR KHAN VS. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-135] [REFERRED TO]
MANGTU RAM VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO 2 DEEG BHARATPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-150] [REFERRED TO]
SEWOOMAL VS. JAI SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-168] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH ANIS AHMAD VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-328] [REFERRED TO]
PENU BALAKRISHNA IYER VS. ARIYA M RAMASWAMI IYER [LAWS(SC)-1964-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDU VENKAPPA DEVADIGA VS. RANGU S DEVADIGA [LAWS(SC)-1977-1-32] [FOLLOWED]
KSHITISH CHANDRA BOSE VS. COMMISSIONER OF RANCHI [LAWS(SC)-1981-2-2] [RELIED ON]
C B J SETH VS. CHAIR PERSON DRAT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
HARNARAIN GIYASILAL VS. KANHAIYALAL GANESHLAL [LAWS(MPH)-1964-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED BUX VS. BASHIR MOHAMMED [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA KUER T VS. BASUDEO MISTRI [LAWS(PAT)-2005-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MITHALAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-139] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ZAKI VS. LEKHRAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-1987-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
YAMUNA MANDAL VS. KAMESHWAR MANDAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
Kesharbai VS. Moti [LAWS(MPH)-1988-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAKHAN MAHTO SON OF LATE SITA RAM MAHTO VS. HARI CHARAN MAHTO SON OF LATE SITA RAM MAHTO AND SATYADEO PRASAD SON OF HARI CHARAN MAHTO [LAWS(PAT)-2009-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT VAISHNAVADAS VS. RAMANUJDAS MINOR THROUGH G.A.L. MST. BINODINI [LAWS(MPH)-1962-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND DEVI VS. KANHAIYA LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-244] [REFERRED TO]
ANTULAL VS. KUNWARPALSINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1961-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKISHAN VS. DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR, GUNA [LAWS(MPH)-1961-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. DURGA SINGH AND PINTO [LAWS(HPH)-2000-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL ALI AND OTHERS VS. HARIJA BIBI [LAWS(GAU)-1972-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR NIGAM, KOTA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NO. 4, KOTA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-250] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA DEVI VS. SAYEEDA KHATOON [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHATI DEVI & OTHERS VS. MURLIDHAR & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-10-74] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR & ANR. VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
ALOKMOY BANERJEE & ORS. VS. CHATTURANAN GHOSH & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-1979-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
NATTHAN VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-11-118] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWAKARMA STONE CRUSHER KESARPURA VS. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
MALI RAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-11-138] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABU PUNJA GAIKWAD VS. VISHNU NANA CHAVAN [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P & ORS VS. DHULIBAI RAJPUT & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-7-180] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KUSUM @ CHANDRAWATI W/O HEMANTPURI VS. MOOLCHAND S/O LATE SHANKARLAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-367] [REFERRED TO]
N TAJUDDIN VS. MALAR KODI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-173] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI KUMAR S/O JAGRAM GUPTA VS. SHAHID SHEIKH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSUNDAR VS. KAILASHCHANDRA [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-428] [REFERRED TO]
HARCHARANSINGH VS. M/S GAJRA GEARS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-477] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RAMKANYABAI AND ANOTHER VS. NIRBHAYRAM DHAKAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-353] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH AND OTHERS VS. DECD. HARISHANKAR THR. L.RS. SHYAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-375] [REFERRED TO]
RODILAL VS. PURILAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-421] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)In the suit from which this appeal by special leave arises the appellant had claimed a mandatory injunction against the defendants (respondents) requiring them to remove the obstruction to the flow of water from Khasra No. 2 to Khasra No. 254 as shown in the map attached to the plaint as well as a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from repeating such acts in future. The appellant's claim was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal before the Additional District Judge the appellant succeeded and both the injunctions claimed by him were ordered to be issued. The respondents then moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by second appeal which was allowed and the appellant's claim dismissed with costs throughout. It is against this decree that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
(2.)In his plaint the appellant alleged that until the abolition of proprietary rights under the Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951 he was a protected Thekedar of village Kongiya Kala for about 40 years. He held and was in possession of 20 pieces of Malik Makbuza lands and 11 Raiyati lands which were specified in paragraph 2 of the plaint. Of these lands Khasra No. 137 is a Bandhiya known as 'Baderatwa'; Khasra Nos.. 254, 253, 255, 450 and 447 also constitute another Bandhiya known as 'Banbharan', while Khasra Nos.. 245 and 246 constitute 'Hiriya-Sahi' Bandhiya. According to the appellant these Bandhiyas were used by him for collecting water for irrigation of his other adjacent fields. The appellant's field, Khasra No. 2 which is known as Budhwa Bharri adjoins Mouza Kansitola khar. The rain water of the said khar in its natural course flows into the appellant's fields. The said rain water also flows into the adjacent lands of Khasra No. 123 belonging to respondent 1, that land being on a lower level, and from the said land it flows through Khasra Nos.. 133 and 136 into Baderatwa Khasra No. 137. At this latter Khasra water is collected and let off as required for filling Khasra No. 254 and others. When the rainfall is normal the water is let off through Khasra No. 156 at or near point M. 1 shown in the map, and when the rainfall is excessive it is let off at point M. 2 in Khasra No. 137 and through Khasra No. 136 at point M. 3 as well as through artificial channels seasonally prepared across the 'dharsa' Khasra No. 114. The water thus reaches Khasra No. 163 wherefrom it goes to Khasra Nos.. 159, 233, 251 and 252 and then into Khasra No. 254. In the said Khasra the water is collected and used for irrigating the appellant's paddy fields on the east and south of Panbharan. The plaint specifically alleged that the course through which the water flows from Khasra No. 2 until it reaches Khasra No. 254 had been shown on the map in the red dotted line. According to the plaint the appellant had been enjoying the natural right to have the water of his field Khasra No. 2 flow off into the field of respondent 1, Khasra No. 123, and through it to the appellant's other fields uninterrupted for more than 40 years but the same had been obstructed in June 1954. It is this obstruction which gave the appellant a cause of action for the present suit.
(3.)This claim was denied by the respondents. In regard to the appellant's allegation that the course through which water flows had been shown in red dotted line on the map the respondents alleged that it was not a natural flow nor was the appellant ever taking the water through that passage. In regard to the user for 40 years on which the appellant relied the respondents made a general denial. As will presently appear we have set out the pleadings at some length because the only question which arises for our decision in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's claim on the ground that his case as made out in the plaint had been misunderstood by the two courts below.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.