Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendants' appeal, which has been referred by a learned Single Judge to a Bench because he felt that the decision of Capoor, J. in Fattan v. Balli, 1964 AWR 594 required reconsideration.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs -Respondents brought a suit for an injunction restraining the Defendants -Appellants from interfering with the Plaintiffs' rights in irrigating their plots from the well situate in plot No. 597. It is admitted between the parties that plot No. 597 with this well was previously under the tenancy of the Plaintiffs. In the Consolidation scheme, this plot along with the well was allotted to the chak of the Defendants. The Defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation for the well to the Plaintiffs. After taking possession of their allotted chak, the Plaintiffs claimed a right to irrigate their plots from the well situate in plot No. 597. The Defendants, however, did not permit them to do so. Hence the suit. The suit was contested on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it as well as on the merits by contesting the Plaintiffs' right of irrigation from this well. The trial court repelled the pleas in bar and decreed the suit, but only in relation to the plots mentioned in Schedule 1 to the plaint. The suit was dismissed in regard to the plots mentioned in Schedule 2.
(3.) THE Defendants went up in appeal. The Plaintiffs filed a cross -objection. Tie lower appellate court affirmed the findings that the civil court had jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs had a right to irrigate their plots from this well in relation to the plots mentioned in Schedule 1. It further upheld the Plaintiffs' case in respect of the plots mentioned in Schedule 2, with the result that the Defendants' appeal was dismissed, the cross -objection was allowed and the suit was decreed in toto. Aggrieved, the Defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. The findings of fact are that the Plaintiffs were previous owners of tae well. In the Consolidation scheme, the well as well as the plot No. 597 has been allotted to the chak of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have been allotted the plots mentioned in Schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint and these plots were being irrigated from the well situate in plot No. 597 for a long time past since prior to the commencement of Consolidation proceedings. On these findings, it was held that Section 30 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applied and the Plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed injunction. 30 runs as follows: 30. Consequences which shall ensue on exchange of possession. With effect from the date on which a tenure -holder enters or is deemed to have entered into possession of the chak allotted to him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the following consequences shall ensue - - (a)... ... ... ... (b) The tenure -holder entering into possession or deemed to have entered into possession, shall have in his chak the same rights, title, interests and liabilities as he had in the original holdings together with such other benefits of irrigation from a private source, till such source exists, as the former tenure -holder of the plots comprising the chak had in regard to them; (c) ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... (e) ... ... ... It will be seen that a tenure -holder has, in respect of the plots allotted to him the same rights, title, interests and liabilities as he had in his original holding. He has the further right to continue to enjoy the benefits of irrigation from a private source, if the former tenure -holder of the plots now given to him had been enjoying such a benefit. In the present case, the Plaintiffs were, prior to the consolidation scheme, enjoying the benefit of irrigation of the plots now allotted to them from the well in plot No. 597. On this finding, the Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to enjoy the same benefit of irrigation.;