- (1.) An interesting point of law involved in this revision petition. By a registered document dated 23rd Magh 1998, Harnam Singh Plaintiff sold 8 bighas 18 biswas of his agricultural land with all appurtenant rights including the one to receive canal water for three hours to Mt. Ishar Kaur for Rs. 700. The alienee, by virtue of the sale and the rights acquired under it stapped into the shoes of the alienor and began to irrigate her fields with canal water for over two hours and this she did uninterrupted for five years. Harnam Singh brought the present suit on 7-4-2004 for an in-junction restraining her from using canal water for more than 24 minutes, the period which would have been ordinarily allotable to the area that had been transferred to her. The suit was resisted with the plea that the Plaintiff at the time of sale, had represented that he was entitled to use water for three hours and that that right had been transferred along with the land. The Courts below have in view of the provisions of Sub-clause (e) of Section 32, Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (III [3] of 1873) granted him a declaration that the contract regarding transfer of waiter was void ab initio and was therefore, not binding upon him even to the extent of 24 minutes which the Plaintiff had himself admitted to be due to Ishar Kaur. The learned Counsel of the Defendant has urged that this view of the law is erroneous and untenable Sub-clause (e) of Section 32 runs as under: Unless with the permission of the Superintending Canal Officer, no person entitled to use the water of any canal or any work, building or land apprutenant to any canal shall sell or sublet or otherwise transfer Ms right to such use . . . Paragraph 2 of this sub-clause, however, prescribe that all contracts made between the Provincial Government and the owner or occupier of any immovable property, as to the supply of canal water to such property, shall be transferable and shall be presumed to have been so transferred whenever a transfer of such property takes place. It is obvious, therefore, that even though there is no specific mention of the transfer of the right to receive canal water in a deed of sale or mortgage, such a transfer shall be presumed to have been made along with the property to which it was attached. Harnam Singh received canal water under a contract pursuant to the acceptance of his application by the canal authorities and the right so acquired was transferable as recognised by Sub-clause (e) of Section 32 of Act ill [3] of 1873. In the face of an express enactment mentioned above, it is difficult to follow as to how the contract regarding the transfer of the right of water can be considered to be void ab initio. Paragraph 1 of sub Clause (e) even does not make a contract of this nature void from its inception. The only condition provided by this Sub-section is that the approval of the Superintending Canal Officer must to obtained by the alienee (alienor ) to complete a valid alienation of the right to irrigate the property sold with canal water. Such approval can, in my view, be obtained even subsequent to the alienation and the law does not appear to insist that it must precede the completion of the agreement to alienate. Assuming that the Plaintiff did not obtain the alleged necessary permission of the Superintending Canal Officer to the transfer of the turn of water to Mt. Iehar Kaur, the contract is not rendered null and void by such omission. The Plaintiff did not urge in the plaint that the contract was void or that it was not enforceable against him. All that he contended was that the Defendant could not get water for more than 24 minutes. The right of the Defendant to irrigate her fields but not beyond 24 minutes, was admitted by him, and it was never his case that he could not transfer the turn of water or that such transfer was not countenanced by law. S. Tirath Singh concedes that the decree of the Courts below is far in excess of what the Plaintiff had prayed for. His grievence however is that Mt. Ishar Kuar is using water for a period several times over the one that the land transferred to her is entitled to receive. This may be so, but the Plaintiff is bound by his contract which he entered into with his eyes open. He is admittedly entitled to canal water for three hours and probably more although that right is attached to other land belonging to him and if he sold a greater share of water than the area transferred warranted, the contract is not invalidated. The revision petition is accepted with costs throughout.;