LAXMANSA RAIBAGI Vs. DEVENDRAPPA KUDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiffs questioning the divergent findings recorded by the Courts below. To appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, few facts are necessary to be stated.

(2.) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is the owner of property bearing CTS No. 6163 shown as BCEF in the hand sketch. Plaintiff No. 2 and his brothers are the joint owners of property bearing CTS No. 6126/abc shown as aghm. The defendant is the owner of house bearing CTS Nos. 6124 and 6125 shown as abcd in the hand sketch. At the place shown as BKNF there are residential houses. There is a primary school known as DETS within the vicinity of the premises in question. According to the plaintiffs the entire area is residential. The plaintiffs houses are ancient and built with mud bricks. The defendant's house is also constructed of mud bricks long back. They are also not in a proper condition in as much as they are in dilapidated condition. The AB and BC walls are common walls constructed by mud bricks. Plaintiff No. 1 along with his family and children is residing in the house shown as BCEF. There are school going children in the family. Likewise plaintiff No. 2 and his brother and family are residing in CTS Nos. 6124 + 6125 shown as AGHM in the sketch. Suffice it to say, that the first defendant is making all efforts to set up a power loom in his house, which according to the plaintiffs would cause nuisance. The anxiety of the plaintiffs is that by erection of such power loom there is every possibility that the structure would develop cracks and the noise emitted from the said power looms causes nuisance.

(3.) THE plaintiffs would submit that the first defendant after putting up the necessary machinery, is making efforts to obtain license. Apprehension is that the second defendant-Municipality is likely to grant the licence. Hence the suit was filed for mandatory injunction restraining the first defendant from setting up a power loom and the second defendant from granting license.