RAM BABU Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected second appeals filed by the plaintiff against the decisions of the Civil Judge of Farrukhabad modifying the decree of the trial Court Issuing two injunctions against the defendant. The plaintiff Ram Babu and the defendant respondent Har Prasad are neighbours in the village Bholey Pur in the district of Farrukhabad. The plaintiff's house has a vacant plot of land towards the east, and the defendant's house adjoins this plot towards the south. The dispute centres round the ownership of this plot and the right to use it. It is common ground that the plaintiff was a co-sharer zamindar of this village. He alleged in his plaint that this plot was his sahan but the defendant, in October 1948, interfered with his enjoyment of this land and committed trespass in various ways. He alleged that the defendant had opened six parnalas on the roof of his house towards the north, a nali or drain discharging water into his Sahara as well as a latrine, and opened a door towards the sahan with the object of passing over the sahan, and had constructed a four-feet wide pushta (or sloping butress) on the sahan along his northern wall for a length of hundred feet. He also alleged that while making these unauthorised constructions the defendant had demolished a cattle trough standing on his sahan, adjoining the wall. The plaintiff complained that all these acts were illegal and asked for the demolition of the pushta, the parnalas, and the nali, and an injunction restraining the defendant from discharging water through the parnalas on the plaintiff's sahan or using it as a passage from his door, and also restraining him from using his latrine. He also sued for damages for the destruction of his cattle trough.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and denied the plaintiff's title to the sahan. He also pleaded in the alternative that all his constructions were old and that he had perfected his title to the pushta and the nali by adverse possession. He denied that the latrine had been constructed on the sahan and asserted that it was situate entirely within his own land.

(3.) The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the sahan and that the pushta was constructed on the plaintiff's land but he refused the prayer for its demolition on the ground that it was constructed more than twelve years before the suit and the defendant had completed his title by adverse possession. He held that the nali was old and the plaintiff's suit with regard to it was time-barred. But he held that the parnalas and the doors towards the north were new and the plaintiff had no right to discharge water through the parnalas on the plaintiff's sahan nor any right to use the door for entering on the sahan, and issued an injunction restraining the defendants from using his door for passing over the plaintiff's sahan and further restraining him from discharging water through his parnalas on this sahan. He directed the defendant to close these parnalas within three months. He dismissed the prayer for the possession of the land on which the pushta had been constructed and for the demolition of the pushta on which it was constructed as also the prayer for the closing up of the nali. He held that the defendant had not demolished the plaintiff's cattle trough and dismissed the claim for damages. He also held that the latrine had been constructed by the defendant on his own and and refused to issue any injunction restraining him from using it.