Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for injunction.
(2.) THE respondent' case, as set up in the plaint presented to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur City East, was that the defendant had certain rooms in the same Haveli as the plaintiffs, and while the Pol belonged to the plaintiff the defendant had only a right of passage in it. It was alleged that the defendant wanted to fix underground cable in the Pol, and for that purpose to dismantle some portion of the Pol and make alterations in the Pol to which he was not entitled. The defendant admitted that he wanted to bring an underground cable for electric supply to his house, but he pleaded that the Pol was joint, and, therefore, he had a right to make the alterations. The trial court accepted the plaintiff's version, and decreed the suit, and the same judgment was upheld on appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the defendant had a right of passage through the Pol, it would cause no harm to the plaintiffs if electric line is brought underground, and the defendant undertakes to repair the damage caused by the lying down of the line. The only question in this case is whether the defendant has a right to fix under ground cable in the Pol. If the parties are on cordial terms, they can certainly make any alterations they choose. But the point in the present case is that if the plaintiff is the owner of the Pol, and the only right to enjoyed by the defendant is of passage, can the defendant make use of the Pol for the purpose of fixing an underground cable. We are not concerned with the right of the Electric Supply Company or authority to take a line to any consumer. The point is whether the defendant can do something in the Pol so as to break it at some place, and then repair it. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defendant is in a position to obtain electric supply line without having to use the plaintiffs' Pol, and that the plaintiffs tried to obtain that line for the defendant, but he did not take advantage of it. The defendant obviously has no right to make use of the Pol in any manner except for the right of passage. In trying to break open the Pol for the purpose of the laying down a line, the defendant was trying to make an excessive user of the Pol, and interfere with the proprietary right of the plaintiffs. The two courts have come to a right conclusion. This appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs. . ;