S.N.Aggarwal, J. - (1.) Shyam Sunder and Satbir-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the present appellant and respondent No.3 from interfering in the peaceful possession/user of the tube well by the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 and 2). The suit was contested by the present appellant. The version of the appellant was that this tube well was got installed by him at his own expenses in the land which was in his possession. The learned trial Court in the judgment dated 31.8.1999 came to the conclusion that the parties were co-sharers and co-owners in the land measuring 175 Kanals and therefore, the tube well situated in this land was jointly owned by them. The appellant filed an appeal against the said judgment. The learned Lower Appellate Court also upheld the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 17.12.2002.
(2.) Hence, the present appeal. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the onus was on respondents No. 1 and 2 to prove that the tube well was jointly owned and possessed by the parties. But the learned trial Court has gone wrong while holding that the appellant has failed to prove if the tube well was exclusively got installed by him. Similar was the approach of the learned Lower Appellate Court, which is contrary to the law, it was submitted.
(3.) This submission has been considered by me. The respondents have succeeded to prove that the land was jointly owned by the parties and the tube well has been installed in the land which is jointly owned by them. No doubt, the tube well is in the name of the appellant but that will not advance the case of the appellant unless he shows that it was got installed by him in that piece of land which was in his possession.;