Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) This is the second appeal of the plaintiff (now represented by his LRs) who had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants seeking that they be restrained from demolishing the water course running through part of the land described in the headnote of the plaint, in village Poohla, Tehsil and District Bathinda, as the said water course was being used by the plaintiff by laying water pipes for irrigating his land. He also sought that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction on the said property so that the plaintiff is not deprived of the use of the water course.
(2.) The facts, as taken from the judgments of the Courts below, are that the plaintiff contended that he was owner of land adjoining to the suit property, comprised in khasra No. 63//13/1, 62/12 and 63/11, situated in the revenue limits of the aforesaid village and that he is using the water course to water his fields through khasra No. 63//13/1, as described in the plan prepared by the Soil and Water Conservation and Waste Land Development Department, Government of Punjab, as was annexed with the plaint. He further submitted that the water course was in existence for more than 25 years and before him, it was being used by his father. The water course was also stated to pass through khasra No. 63//7 and that khasra girdawaries (annual records) also showed that the property was in the ownership of the defendants but that the water course flowing therein was being used by the plaintiff. It was further contended that for installing the pipes in the water course, on account of its high level, the plaintiff had raised a loan of Rs. 51,000/- from the Nathana Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. and thereafter had laid the pipes before 1996, with outlets also provided by the Canal authorities, to facilitate the plaintiff in irrigating his land. However, now the defendants were trying to dismantle the pipes and had raised construction, for which they had already stored the material on the site and as such, were hindering the plaintiff from irrigating his land.
(3.) It was also contended that the defendants had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, seeking that he be restrained from raising a fresh water course on the suit land, in which the plaintiff had filed his written statement, giving the facts as given herein above, along with relevant record. In that suit, the defendants (plaintiffs in that suit) had suffered a statement that they would not interfere in the use of the existing water course and the plaintiff herein (defendant in that suit) had stated that he would not illegally and forcibly construct a water course. Thereupon that suit had been withdrawn; however, they had also stated in that suit that there were no pipes affixed in the water course but, it was contended that the said statement was incorrect and the truth could be verified by appointing a Local Commissioner.;