MOHAN SINGH Vs. DANVIR SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant second appeal in a suit for mandatory injunction for removal of certain projections shown by letters E F G H I J K Rs.M N on the plant map and two additional projections and iron bars at two places in the southern wall of the defendants house, moris and parnalas and five manholes said to have been constructed after the suit was filed on the land m dispute.

(2.) The defendant had purchased a plot of land from the plaintiff. The plain-( tiffs house was to the south of the land sold. The plaintiff had left a 15-6" wide strip of land between his house and the plot of land sold to the defendant. This strip of land is described on the map annexed to the sale-deed as "common Rasta 15-6" "wide". This common Rasta ended on the west with the western boundary line of the plot sold to the defendant and also the plaintiffs house, North-eastern comer of the plot sold to the defendant was somewhat semi-circular and a Rasta (passage) is shown to exist to the east and the north east of the plot sold to the defendant as also to the east of the plaintiffs house 15-6" wide common Rasta between the land sold to the defendant and the plaintiffs house opened on the said Rasta on the eastern side. This 15-6" wide strip of land is the land in suit. In constructing his house on the plot of land purchased by the defendant he did not leave any space on the south along common Rasta. Instead he raised a Wall at the very end of the southern boundary of the plot purchased by him and extended the sunshades of the windows and doors of his house on the land of the common Rasta in dispute, and also appears to have laid his sewer lines through the common Rasta and allowed the Moris and pamalas of his house to open on the common Rasta. The plaintiffs case was that this strip of land was left merely to give a right of passage over it to the defendant and for no other purpose, and, accordingly, the projections made, the moris and the panamas opened and the sewer lines laid by the defendant on the land of that common Rasta were unlawfully made and were liable to be removed.

(3.) The defence was that the land of the common Rasta was joint property and that the defendant had every right to project the sun shades of his windows and doors thereon and to use it in the manner in which he had used the same. Several issues were framed in the suit. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 related to the question whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of 15-6" wide strip of land or that it was joint property an tissues Nos. 4 and 5 related to the question whether the defendant had the right to make the projections in question on the land of the common Rasta in suit. The trial Court found that the land was not joint property and that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the disputed land and further held that the defendant had no right to make projections or to construct man-holes, panamas and morris over the land in suit and in the result decreed the suit for removal and demolition of the projections, the two morris panamas and the man-holes in question. The lower appellate court has confirmed the decree of the trial Court.