RAJU Vs. DEEPTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.S.No.509 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Muvattupuzha, against the respondents for an injunction restraining them from making any construction in the plaint 'B' schedule property obstructing the free flow of light and air. In the suit, I.A.No.3076 of 2009 was filed for temporary injunction. THE trial court dismissed the application by the order dated 11.3.2010. THE petitioner filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muvattupuzha, challenging the order passed by the trial court. THE lower appellate court confirmed the order passed by the trial court. THE petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the courts below in the interlocutory application and in C.M.A.No.7 of 2010.

(2.) THE plaint 'A' schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from the first defendant. THE main building belongs to the first defendant. THE plaint 'A' schedule property is a portion of the same on the eastern side of the first floor of the building. THE building is on the eastern side of M.C.Road. THE plaint 'B' schedule property is on the further east of the plaint 'A' schedule property. According to the plaintiff, that property belongs to the first defendant. THE first defendant proposes to construct a building in the plaint 'B' schedule property. According to the plaintiff, this will obstruct the free flow of air and light passing through the plaint 'B' schedule property and which is being enjoyed by the plaintiff while occupying the plaint 'A' schedule building. THEre are four windows on the eastern side of the plaint 'A' schedule building. If the construction is made, there will be no free flow of air and light through these four windows on the eastern side.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings made by the court below are not legally correct and the plaintiff is entitled to claim the right under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act as well. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings rendered by the court below are contrary to law and facts.