CIRCUMSTANCES AND PREPARATION MADE BY THE
PETITIONER IN INSTALLATION OF SOLAR ROOF TOP PROJECT,
TO EXECUTE AND CONCLUDE AS PER THE PPA AGREEMENT ... CIRCUMSTANCES AND PREPARATION
MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN INSTALLATION OF SOLAR ROOF
TOP PROJECT, TO EXECUTE AND CONCLUDE AS PER THE PPA
AGREEMENT
defendant's property was not in straight
line and its roof projected towards defendant's property. It
noted that CW.1 specifically stated
viii. That the plaintiff has done extra work in respect
of projection of roofing.
ix. There is no material to demonstrate that the
plaintiff ... plaintiff
has done extra work in respect of the doors and
roofing projection.
xiv. That there is no agreement to pay the interest.
The Trial
Floor to Fifth floor
construction, the BBMP authorities found that the roof
projection in upper floors is 3 ft but actual projection
further contended that basement roof projected
continuous external floor of about three feet width is built
around the building on three sides i.e., north
PLAN, AS PER LAW, MORE PARTICULARLY
REMOVAL OF THE OVER-EXTENDED/PROJECTED ROOF
PORTIONS ON THE SIDE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY TO
THAT EFFECT
roof wall of the plaintiff.
Moreover, the defendant while being examined as DW1 has
admitted in the cross examination that his roof was projected
about ... defendant has put up new roof or
there was earlier roof encroaching open space of plaintiff.
This projection of the roof can be seen
plan, as per Law, more
3
particularly removal of over-extended/projected roof portions on
the side of petitioner's property to that effect ... plan, as per law,
more particularly removal of the over-
extended/projected roof portions on the side of
petitioner's property to that effect
that the petitioner and
the deceased were living together under one roof
projecting themselves as husband and wife to the
neighbours but had not married
northern side of the coconut tree and the
encroached portion of RCC roof to an extent of 18
inches towards coconut tree's side ... foundation to an extent of 12 inches and a roof
projection of 18 inches.
3. The Lower Appellate Court observed that the
defendants were
