common wall and consequently, for the relief of permanent
injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with putting up the
joining wall, in the common wall ... situated on the eastern side of the first item is
a common wall, to both the plaintiffs and the defendant. The same was
reflected
defendant will be
common and the passageway also will be common. It was not sold to
defendant. A wall of 15 inches width was being ... plaintiffs' half part of the common
wall and remove the wall built by him over common wall and also remove
the construction work done
purchase, only in the portion shown as, “EF”, there
was a common wall present and it approximately measures 39.6 feet. The
roof of the defendant ... entire wall as exclusive
wall when the character of 2/3rd length of the
remaining wall is declared as common wall?”
http://www.judis
purchase, only in the portion shown as, “EF”, there
was a common wall present and it approximately measures 39.6 feet. The
roof of the defendant ... entire wall as exclusive
wall when the character of 2/3rd length of the
remaining wall is declared as common wall?”
http://www.judis
common wall. It is further
alleged that there is no objection from either side since 1974
which itself proves that the wall is common ... common
wall and no money was paid by the defendant for the
construction of the wall in question. PW1 further deposed that
the wall
year 1922, the southern
boundary has been clearly defined as common wall of the plaintiff's property.
The said Muthu Konar died leaving behind ... described as common wall and the Gate had been installed in the eastern
end of the pathway 10 years prior to the filing
year 1922, the southern
boundary has been clearly defined as common wall of the plaintiff's property.
The said Muthu Konar died leaving behind ... described as common wall and the Gate had been installed in the eastern
end of the pathway 10 years prior to the filing
wall on which the beams are mounted by him
is a common wall and therefore the plaintif has no right to
prevent the defendant from ... using and/or mounting the
beams on this common wall.
6. The evidence on record shows that the defendant had
examined Civil Engineer Shri. Mahendi
wall on which the beams are mounted by him
is a common wall and therefore the plaintif has no right to
prevent the defendant from ... using and/or mounting the
beams on this common wall.
6. The evidence on record shows that the defendant had
examined Civil Engineer Shri. Mahendi
erred in
excluding only 50% area of common wall from built-up area instead of 100%
area of common wall ... merely elevational/ ornamental features which are open to sky, not
enclosed by walls, add to the beautification of the housing project and in no
manner
