AGADI LAKSHMINARAYANA CHETTY AND Vs. HIRACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals raise common questions of law and fact. Hence they could be conveniently dealt with in one judgment as has been done in the Courts below.

(2.) To bring out the points in controversy debated before this Court, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts. The dispute relates to the plot marked ABCD in the eye sketch annexed to the plaint; it belongs to the Government and it is an open space. The two plaintiffs are owners and occupiers of premises adjoining this plot of land. The defendant has attempted to put up a building in this open space and the plaintiffs-appellants state that the building that he (defendant) proposes to put up would cut off completely the lateral light and air to the premises occupied by them and thus cause substantial injury to them. They also complain that the proposed building would obstruct the right of way that they have acquired over the said plot.

(3.) The Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plot ABCD is Government land. It is not proved that the defendant had acquired any title to the land in question. Nor is he a lessee or a licensee under the Government. The contention of the defendant that he has been allowed by the Municipality representing the Government to make use of the land is not proved. This contention evidently was advanced on the ground that the Municipality had approved the plan submitted by him for putting up a building in the plot in question. Approval of the building plan does not amount to a granting of license to occupy the plot in question. Nor is it proved that the Municipality had any authority to grant any license to the defendant to occupy the land in question. On proved facts it is clear that the defendant is a trespasser.