- (1.) This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge who upheld dismissal of the plaintiff's suit by the trial Court.
(2.) Mawasi, Sukh Lal and Giani sons of Rakha lodged the present action for grant of a perpetual induction restraining the defendants from obstructing them in the installation of an electric pumping set wrongly described as tube well on the Bagriwala well situated in village Kanha, tehsil and district Gurgaon. They alleged that the well where they intended installing the electric pumping set for drawing water for irrigation purposes belonged to them and as such the defendants who represented the Harijans had no right to stop them from doing so. The defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership of the well who by a compromise are alleged to have undertaken not to install an electric pumping set thereon.
(3.) The plaintiffs in their replication did not admit having entered into any compromise giving the opposite side to understand that no such pumping set would be installed, and further added that the compromise even if proved was effected under undue influence and so not binding on them. The following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the well in dispute ? If not, what is the effect ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs have no right to fix tube-well; if issue No. 1 is proved ? (3) Whether there has been any previous compromise as alleged ? If so what is the effect ? (4) Whether the well is dedicated for use of the defendants ? If so, what is the effect ? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are not in possession in case issue No. 1 is proved ? If so, what is the effect ? (6) Whether the valuation for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction is correct ? (7) Whether the defendant has a right to take water from the well ? If so, what is the effect ? (8) Relief. Issue Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. If was observed that the plaintiffs by executing compromise deed Exhibit D.1 undertook not to install the pumping set and both issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against them. Issue No. 4 was found against the defendants. It was also held that the defendants were entitled to take water from the well in dispute. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, dismissed with costs.;