Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. The captioned second appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the divergent findings of the Courts below.

3. Facts leading to the above said case are as follows.

Appellant/plaintiff filed bare suit for injunction by contending that he is the owner of house property bearing Gram Panchayath No.73 situated at Pochapur village. The appellant/plaintiff further contended that 'ABCD' portion shown in the hand sketch map is dilapidated house of appellant/plaintiff. Further 'DECF' portion shown in the hand sketch map is the plot owned by respondent/defendant. The appellant/ plaintiff herein contended that point 'DC" depicted in the hand sketch is a common wall owned by appellant/plaintiff and as well as respondent/ defendant. The grievance of the appellant/plaintiff is that since 'DC' point has a common wall respondent/defendant is no right to put windows, doors or water spout on the said common wall. Hence filed bare suit for injunction at the first instance. However, subsequently the appellant/plaintiff sought amendment and incorporated the relief of mandatory injunction. The appellant/plaintiff in support of his contention led in oral evidence and documentary evidence and examined four witnesses on his behalf. Respondent/defendant by way of rebuttal evidence examined two independent witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and produced rebuttal documentary evidence vide Exs.D.1 to D.8.

4. The Trial Court having assessed oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant/ plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and further recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiff is in lawful possession over the 'ABCD' portion as shown in the hand sketch map annexed to the plaint. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff has proved that the respondent has illegally fixed windows and water spout over 'DC' common wall and therefore decreed the suit granting mandatory injunction and thereby directing the respondent/defendant to remove the windows and water spouts fixed over the 'DC' common wall.

7. Against the divergent findings of the Courts below, the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court. Perused the judgment under challenge.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The dispute infact revolves around narrow compass. The appellant/plaintiff is asserting that he owns a house bearing No.73 which is in dilapidated condition and to the south of his property, respondent/defendant owns a property. It is specific case of appellant/plaintiff that, both the properties are divided by a common wall and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff contends that respondent/ defendant has no right to fix windows and water spouts on the common wall which is referred as 'DC' point in the sketch annexed to the Plaint. To substantiate his claim that he owns dilapidated house to the North of defendant's property, there is absolutely no documentary evidence produced. On the contrary the Commissioner's report clearly indicates that the property owned by the appellant/plaintiff is a vacant site. If the property owned by appellant/plaintiff is a vacant site, then this Court is of the view that, the appellant/plaintiff cannot assert and claim that the wall on the southern side is a common wall. Even the Commissioner's report indicates that it is a vacant site.