M/S Mahavir Furnitures vs State Of Chhattisgarh 51 Wpc/7932/2011 ... on 15 January, 2019
DW1 was duly cross-examined by counsel for plaintiff.
Witness stated that suit property was constructed upto the ground
floor prior to her knowledge and rest of the floors were
constructed in her knowledge. She stated that ground floor was
constructed prior to her birth by her grandfather and she was not
aware about the layout plan, map and design of the suit property.
She stated that she was not residing in the suit property and the
CS No.7152/2016 (Old No.65/15) Page 10 of 20
Mahavir Singh Vs Smt. Sudesh Kumari & Ors
entire ground floor had been given on rent by her mother for
commercial purpose. When she was shown the site plan of suit
property Ex.PW1/A, she stated that it was incorrect and there was
no open space at point X and no lift at point Y. She further stated
that entry to point Z was from Z1 and not from Z2. She denied
that point Y was made to install a lift and further denied that the
hall made on the ground for lift had been covered by the
defendants. She admitted that there were pillars at point 1 ,2 ,3 and
4 but denied that they had been installed for the purpose of the lift.
She also denied that there had to be an entry to the lift which had
to be from the lobby and from point 5. She admitted that water,
sewer and water drainage pipes were running from the shaft from
ground floor to top floor and admitted that point C was common
for all the floors. She denied that electricity connection could not
be installed as the main point of electricity was below the stair
which had been covered by the defendants by making a boutique
and plaintiff had no access to the same. She denied that the point
A, B and C were common space and A had been left for
installation of lift. She admitted that defendant no.4 was running a
boutique and she was not having any document qua the same.