Ram Sarup Vs Jogi Ram and Others

Th e plaintiff is in appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff w as dismissed by t h e learned First Appellate Cour t . For the sake of convenience, the parties are refer r ed to as per their status in the Civil Suit. [2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment a nd decree dated 1 6 .12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kai t hal (hereinafter to b e referred as the “First Appellate Court” ), whereby an appeal f i led at the instanc e of appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree d a ted 15.12.2016 pas s ed by the Court of learned Ci v il Judge (Junior Division), Kai t hal (hereinafter to b e referred as the “trial Court”), dismissing the suit for perma n ent injunction, was dismissed; thereby affirming t h e judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

¶13

[3]. A suit for permanent injunction was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaint i ff seeking decree of per m anent injunction against the respondent(s)/d e fendant(s), restraining them fr o m forcibly and illegally excava t ing a water course through the suit land and ther e by, destroying the chari crop a nd safeda trees of t h e plaintiff standing thereon.

¶14

MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

2

¶16

RSA No.2229 of 2023 (O&M) [4]. Up o n notice, defendant(s) appeare d and filed written statement rai s ing preliminary ob j ections regarding maintainabi l ity of the suit, cause of act i on, limitation, juris d iction, non-joinder and mis-joi n der of the necessary parties. It w as also pleaded th a t the order dated 27.06.1980 p assed by the DCO, Narwana a nd order dated 19 . 03.1981 of the Superintendin g Canal Officer, Lining Divis i on, Kaithal were n o t binding upon the defendants, as they were not parties to the s aid proceedings b e fore the competent authoriti e s, nor had they expressed a ny willingness to a l ter the alignment of the waterc o urse. On these premises, they, in ter alia, prayed for d ismissal of the suit. No replica t ion was filed by the plaintiff. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the pa r ties, the learned trial Court fra m ed the following is s ues:-

¶17

“1. Whether plaintiff is enti tl ed to a decree for perma n ent injunction as prayed for? O PP .

¶18

Whether the suit of the p l aintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

¶19

Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? O P D.

¶20

Whether the suit is barred b y law of limitation? OPD.

¶21

Whether the suit is bad f o r non-joining and mis-joinin g of necessary parties? OPD

¶22

Relief.”

¶23

[6]. Th e learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree d a ted 15.12.2016, dis m issed the suit filed at the in s tance of plaintiff, while deci d ing Issue No. 1 a g ainst the plaintiff . Issue Nos . 2 to 5 were not pressed by the defendant(s) an d thus, were disposed of being n o t pressed.

¶24

[7]. Ag g rieved thereof, the plaintiff f iled first appeal, which was a lso dismissed vide j udgment and decree dated 16. 1 2.2022 passed by the learned F irst Appellate Cour t . Hence, the present Regular S e cond Appeal.

¶25

MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶26

3

¶27

RSA No.2229 of 2023 (O&M)

¶28

[8]. Im p ugning the aforesaid judgment s and decrees passed by the Co u rts below, learned counsel for the appellant/plaint i ff submits that the learned Co u rts below failed to d uly consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduce d by the plaintiff in s upport of his claim that no kha l /water course ever existed over the suit land prior t o the institution of the suit be f ore the learned trial Court. It w as further submitt e d that, just a day prior to the i n stitution of the suit, the defend a nts attempted to ill e gally and forcibly dig a khal/ w ater course through the suit l a nd, thereby, causin g damage to the chari crop a nd safeda trees standing ther e on belonging to th e appellant/plaintiff. Thus, the j u dgments and decrees passed by the learned Court s below, being contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellant/plaint i ff, were liable to be set aside. N o other argument has been ra i sed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff.

¶29

[9]. Af t er hearing learned counsel f o r the appellant and having g o ne through the pap e r-book/records, I am unable to find substance in the submissio n (s) made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff.

¶30

[10]. A p erusal of the record reveals t h at, admittedly, a watercourse w as earlier running through the suit land; however , upon an application made by the shareholders, it s alignment was ordered to be changed from the suit land to the land comprised in Rect. No. 41, Killa Nos. 2 4 , 23, 18, 13, 8 and 13 vide o r der dated 27.06.1980 passed by the Divisional Can a l Officer, Narwana Lining Divi s ion No. 3, MITC, K aithal. The learned First Ap p ellate Court vide judgment d a ted 16.12.2022 ev e n recorded a finding that the watercourse, which was run n ing through the suit land, continued to exist on the d ate of institution of the suit by the plaintiff and th a t during the pendency of the s uit, he attempted to demolish the same. For refe r ence, relevant para no.24 of t h e judgment of the First Appel l ate Court is being e x tracted hereunder:-

¶31

MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶32

4

¶33

RSA No.2229 of 2023 (O&M)

¶34

“2 4 . From the entire aforesaid eviden c e it is proved on the record that the w ater co ur se which was running through the s u it land was still in existence on the d ate of f iling of the present suit by the pl a intiff and during its pendency, pla in tiff att em pted demolition of the same. The plaintiff has sought relief of perm an ent inj u nction for restraining the defendant fr om digging water course in the suit la nd, ho w ever, from aforementioned evidenc e it is abundantly clear that in the ga rb of the p resent suit, the plaintiff only wante d to demolish the existing water cour s e in the suit land.”

¶35

[11]. Fu r ther, both the Courts below h ave concurrently held that, in the absence of co g ent and convincing evidence led by the appellant/plaintif f to establish that t h e defendants had attempted to i nterfere with the suit land, no c ase was made out i n his favour. The appellant/plai n tiff failed to substantiate the cl a im that the defend a nts attempted to excavate a kh al /water course through the suit l a nd and damaged t h e standing crop and safeda trees, as no complaint to any authority or photographi c evidence of the alleged occu r rence was produced on record by him.

¶36

[12]. In view of the discussion ma d e hereinabove, there being no misreading of pleadings or any evidence availa b le on record on the part of Co u rts below, neither a ny material evidence having lo s t sight of, the present appeal b e ing devoid of merit s is hereby dismissed, upholdin g the judgment and decrees pa s sed by the Courts b e low.

¶37

[13]. All pending application(s), if any, s hall stand disposed of.

¶38

April 23, 2026 Atik

¶39

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE

¶40

Wh e ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wh e ther reportable Yes/No

¶41

MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Ram Sarup v. Jogi Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sarup v. Jogi Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh (Deceased) through Lrs Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Maharaj Krishan Pandit Alias Maharaj Krishan Pandita and Another Vs Haryana State and Others

Smt. Kavita and Another Vs Arun and Others

Swaranjit Singh (Now Deceased) Son of Late Balwant Singh through His Lrs Vs Union of India and Others

Harcharan Singh Vs the Dharamkot Primary Co-Op Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. and Others

Ram Mehar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana