Punjab-Haryana High Court
Siri Ram vs Dara Ram & Anr on 18 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162455
RSA No.4107 of 2012 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:162455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4107 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Order:18.12.2023
Siri Ram ..Appellant
Versus
Dara Ram and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. M.K.Sajjan, Advocate, for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. Although, the First Appellate Court has slightly modified the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court, however, substantively there
is a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below while deciding
the plaintiff's suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from continuous use of a water course.
2. The plaintiff has constructed a residential house in the
agricultural fields. He filed a suit for a decree for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from continuing to use the water channel which
abuts his residential house. He claims that on account of seepage from the
water channel his residential house has suffered certain damages.
3. On the other hand, the defendants while filing the counter claim
prayed for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering in his
possession. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, whereas the counter
claim filed by the defendants was decreed. The First Appellate Court has
partly accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit filed by
him to the extent of restraining the defendants from interfering in his
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162455
RSA No.4107 of 2012 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:162455
possession.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
direction should be issued to the respondents to shift his water course as the
appellant's residential house has developed cracks. He submits that it's a
private water channel of the defendants and therefore, they should be
restrained from using the same.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that it is for the plaintiff to take steps to stop seepage of
water by using various methods for preventing the water from seeping in.
7. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. The learned counsel representing the appellant does not dispute
that the plaintiff has constructed the residential house in his agricultural
fields. In such circumstances, it is for the plaintiff to take steps to prevent
the seepage of water by applying various methods available in the market
from preventing seepage of water.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
10. Dismissed.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
December 18, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162455
2 of 2
