NANDLAL RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. MAGAN BHARATBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 04.12.1986 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karjan in Regular Civil Suit No.189 of 1881, the appellants-original defendants have preferred present appeal, whereby the Civil Judge held that the defendants-original appellants herein has no right to make any construction on the eastern side of the property within 12 feets and the defendants-original appellants herein should have remove the pillars and slat covered within 12 ft.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:-

(3.) Mr.Patel, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that that the plaintiff no.1 - respondent no.1 herein himself deposed before the Court vide Exh.63 that the house of the respondents and the appellants are situated in opposite side. From the respondents' houses, the houses of appellants are situated on western side. It is the say of the respondent no.1 that between the house of the parties, there is 12 ft way. The respondents have narrated the measurement of his property i.e. plaintiff's property east/west-48 ft. and south/north 49 ft. The predecessor in title of the appellant's property was of one Himmatlal Revashankar Joshi. The respondent has also narrated that in the year 1974- 75, by exchange of properties, the appellants have taken the property from original owner Himmatlal. In his property, for lights and air, windows, doors and iron-sheets are put up. For the disputed land, it is the say of the respondent that the permission from the village panchayat for construction is given to the appellants for which there are certain restrictions i.e. the appellants are permitted to construct north/south 59 ft. and east/west 44 ft. and the appellants are directed that 12 ft land was to be kept open for the house of the respondents and that resolution is produced at M-3/1 and the appellants also submitted a map before the village panchayat authority. According to the respondents case, the appellants have not constructed according to the plan sanctioned by the village panchayat.