GARUDA SATYANARAYANA Vs. GRANDHI VENKATACHALAPATHI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the 2nd plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me are that the 2nd plaintiff, who purchased the building from the official Receiver, the 1st plaintiff, instituted the present suit firstly for a declaration that the lane marked AKJH in the suit plan is joint: secondly, for a declaration that the landing space and a space of 2 feet beyond to the 2nd plaintiff; and thirdly for a declaration that he has got right of easement to light and air to all the doors and windows and finally for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the wall B H-2 raised unauthorisedly by him. It was alleged inter alia that G. Krishnamurthy was the owner of a house situated in the main road. Anakapalle described in the plan attached to the plaint. It was the ancestral property of the said Krishnamurthy and his brothers. IN a partition, the said building fell to the share of G. Krishnamurthy. This Krishnamurthy was adjudged as insolvent in I. P. No. 5 of 1955 by the Subordinate Judges Court. Visakhapatnam and his properties consequently were vested in the Official Receiver the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff brought this building to sale. The second plaintiff purchased it for a sum of Rs. 18,000 on 5-4-1957. Possession of the building was given to the 2nd plaintiff on 5-5-1957 and a formal sale deed was executed and registered by the Official Receiver in favour of the 2nd plaintiff on 5-4-1958. The 2nd plaintiff, after he got the title and possession of the said building, fixed iron meshes and swing doors to the doors and windows. It was alleged further that on 16-8-1957 the defendant put up a wall adjacent to the doors and windows and thus obstructed the light and air of the rooms whose doors and windows were open on the side where the wall was constructed. The plaintiffs therefore consequently claimed the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) The defendant admitted that there was a partition between him and his brother G. Krishnamurthy and that G. Krishnamurthy was adjudged as insolvent. He also did not dispute the fact that the building was purchased by the 2nd plaintiff from the Official Receiver. He however pleaded that under Exhibit B-3 dated 26-3-1953, G. Krishnamurthy permitted the defendant to erect the wall the effect of which may be to close the doors and windows. He also disputed that the lane AKJH jointly belonged to the 2nd plaintiff and the defendant. He claimed exclusive ownership of the said lane.