Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: structural changes in Vinod Anand vs . Smt. Manjith Chawla on 26 October, 2018Matching Fragments
1. The present suit was filed for seeking Permanent Injunction against the defendant for restraining him from carrying out structural changes in the G.F. of property no. E125, GKI, New Delhi and Mandatory Injunction for directing him to restore the structural position of the ground floor of the suit property as it existed prior to the renovation/repair carried out by the defendant. As per the allegations levelled by the plaintiff, the said changes were being carried out without seeking any fresh sanction plan from the competent authority. Further, as per the assertions of the plaintiff, structural changes carried out by defendant on the ground floor (G.F.) has not only caused damage to the first floor (F.F.) of the suit property but also disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of the first floor (of which plaintiff is the owner), in addition to making the entire building unsafe as a result of which no construction can be carried out on roof of second floor (i.e 3 rd floor) of which also, plaintiff is the owner.
2. This Court did not grant interim injunction against Vinod Anand vs. Smt. Manjith Chawla the construction which was being carried out by the defendant and resultantly, the construction was completed during the pendency of the suit.
3. Defendant, who is the admitted owner of the ground floor of the suit property denied that any large scale structural changes have been carried out in the suit property. The defense raised was that since the building was more than 40 years old, it required urgent repair/renovation. However, despite repeated requests, plaintiff did not carry out the necessary repairs forcing the defendant to undertake the necessary exercise on her own. It was counter alleged by the defendant that plaintiff tried to extort money from the defendant on the pretext of giving sanction for carrying out repairs. It was specifically alleged that plaintiff demanded Rs. 55 lacs from the defendant for letting her to carry out the necessary renovation/ repair. Defendant also filed a counterclaim seeking Rs. 19 lacs from the plaintiff for causing extreme harassment to the defendant. The counterclaim was however not registered separately and an issue with regard to the counterclaim was framed along with the issues in the main suit.
On behalf of the plaintiff
9. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW 1. Examinationin chief of the Plaintiff was on the lines of the averments in the plaint. Particularly, para 19 of the Affidavit in evidence of PW1 contains the details of the structural changes carried out by the defendant on the ground floor.
10. The crossexamination of PW1 is not of much relevance. Plaintiff being the owner of the first floor, himself stepped in to the witness box as PW1. His assertions and allegations regarding the nature of structural changes carried out by the defendant were inconsequential unless the same were corroborated by the expert witness. Nevertheless, relevant part of the same is being highlighted.
11. In cross examination, PW 1 deposed that load Vinod Anand vs. Smt. Manjith Chawla bearing walls at point A B C D in Ex.PW1/D1 (photograph of proposed plan), have been removed by the defendant; that drainage pipes have been shifted from vertical position to angular position resulting in problems in water passage from the kitchen of FF because of change in water pipe system; and that his Architect had refused to prepare construction plan for the 3rd floor since the existing building/structure does not have the strength to bear the load of the 3rd floor on account of removal of load bearing walls on the ground floor. However, the witness admitted that till now, no mishap had been caused due to the structural changes carried out in the ground floor of the suit property