CHINTALA KRISHNAMURTY Vs. UPPALA RAJLINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decision in A.S. No. 31/1975 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by which the decree and judgement in O.S. No. 21/1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Medak was confirmed. Defendants in the suit are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) Plaintiff (respondent) is the owner of the house bearing No. 3-4-64 and situate in Bada Bazaar, Medak Town. Defendants (appellants) are the owners of the house bearing No. 3-4-67 and lying to the east of the plaintiff's house. There is some vacant pace to the east of the plaintiff's house and west of the wall FGHJIA of the plaint plan, belonging to the defendants. There is admittedly a well in this vacant space and it is also not in dispute that the vacant space and the well in it are accessible to the plaintiff and the members of his family through a door way in their house which opens into the said vacant space. The plaintiff's case is that he is the exclusive owner of the vacant site and the well referred to above and the 2nd defendant, who was recently granted permission by the Municipality to reconstruct his house, high-handedly made some openings in his wall FGMIJA with a view to fix windows, therein, contrary to his building plan approved by the Municipality and with a view to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff and the members of his family, including ladies, who have been using the vacant space and that they should, therefore be restrained by a perpetual injunction from opening any window or door in the aforesaid wall and should also be directed by means of a mandatory injunction to close the openings already made by them in the wall FGHIJA. This suit was resisted by the defendants, contending inter alia, that the vacant space lying in between their western wall and the plaintiff's house is their joint site and not the exclusive property of the plaintiff and that even otherwise, the plaintiff is not entitled to question their right to open windows in the wall which belongs exclusively to them.

(3.) The following issues were set down for trial on the basis of the pleadings :