PAZHANIANDI BAKTHAR Vs. CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first and second defendants are the appellants in an action by the cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. , Kumbakonam (plaintiff) for a mandatory injunction and for damages. It is not necessary to set forth the particulars upon which the suit was based, at any great length. "it is sufficient to observe that, according to the plaintiff bank, the house property immediately to the west of the bank building belonged to the two defendants, and that they reconstructed, their house in such a manner as to obstruct the passage of light and air into the open windows of the bank buildings. This construction of a wall by the defendants above the proofing of their old building and immediately adjoining the windows of the bank building on the upper floor, has resulted in the diminution of accustomed light and air.

(2.) THE trial Court framed the necessary issues, and since the plaintiff bank reserved the basis of suit relating to denial of accustomed light and air by virtue of the wall erected by defendants (appellants), for separate action, dismissed the suit outright.

(3.) THE matter went up on appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. I must make it plain here that the reservation that I earlier referred to occurred in the appellate Court and not in the trial Court. Actually, the District Munsif who tried the suit thought that, even without the reservation, the bank did not established its right to light and air through those windows. The reservation is perfectly explicable. The bank building was built in the year 1938, and this suit was instituted in 1958 so that 22 years had not expired between the construction of the bank and the claim by the bank. In any event, a part of the suit, namely, the claim in regard to light and air was thus sequestrated and taken outside the scope of the appeal. It is also no longer before me in second appeal.