(1.) This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of declaration of his easementary right and for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the defendant.
(2.) The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit schedule property in terms of a Sale Deed dtd. 13/8/1973 and that the eastern boundary of the said property was an alley (galli) and thereafter, the house of the defendant was situated. The plaintiff alleged that he was enjoying free passage of air and light from the windows that were in existence in the eastern wall of building in the suit schedule property. He claimed that there was a 2 feet wide space on the east of the eastern side wall of the building in the suit schedule property which was owned by him. He, claimed that he had an easementary right over the said alley for enjoying free passage of air and light continuously. He alleged that the defendant demolished the building that existed in his property and later on, undertook massive construction over his property by encroaching the alley area and the 2 feet wide space situated on the east of the eastern side wall of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had encroached 3 feet alley on the eastern side and also 2 feet wide space on the east of the eastern side wall of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, therefore, sought for a declaration of his easementary right and for consequential relief of permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction put up by the defendant.