REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KANTA BAI Appellant

V/S

Umashankar Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF KERALA VS. MOHD. KUNHI [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVAN NAIR VS. BHASKAR PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
MADAMAIICHI RANIAPPA VS. MUTHALURU BOJJAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHOLARAM VS. AMEERCHAND [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SHARMA VS. BANI GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
PANCHUGOPALBARUA VS. UMESH CHANDRA GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
KSHITISH CHANDRA PURKAIT VS. SANTOSH KUMAR PURKAIT [REFERRED TO]
SHEELCHAND VS. PRAKASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
DNYANOBABHAURAO SHEMADE VS. MAROTI BHAURAO MARNOR [REFERRED TO]
KANAI LAL GARARI VS. MURARI GANGULY [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
KULWANT KAUR VS. GURDIAL SINGH MANN [REFERRED TO]
PAKEERAPPA RAI AND SEETHAMMA HENGSU D VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KANTI DEVI VS. POSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
LEELA SONI VS. RAJESH GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
THIAGARAJAN VS. VENUGOPALASWAMY B KOIL [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS and CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT VS. P SHANMUGAMA [REFERRED TO]
H P PYAREJAN VS. DASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV KAUR VS. KAKI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. BACKIAM [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE HOSHIARPUR VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
GURVACHAN KAUR VS. SALIKRAM [REFERRED TO]
HARJEET SINGH VS. AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR LAL VS. SOHAN DEVI [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA VS. AJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27/10/2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2016, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 28/11/2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 11 -A/2015.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as well as for removal of illegal construction. It is the case of the appellant that she had purchased two plots from Kallu Khan and Majeed Khan by registered sale deed dated 20/6/1996. The wall of the defendants was situated on the western side of one of her plot and after demolishing the said wall, the defendants have erected a window towards the plot of the plaintiff and when the son of the plaintiff objected to it, then the defendants assured that they would remove the same, however, the same was not done and accordingly, the son of the plaintiff served a notice on defendant no.l on 23/1/2013. In spite of notice, the defendant continued with the construction and has again made a window, ventilator pipes are being used to discharge waste material on the plot of the plaintiff and the defendant has also constructed window and ventilator on the first and second floor facing towards the plot of the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is stated that there is a way (Gali) between the plots of the plaintiff and the house of the defendant, and the windows and ventilators as well as pipes are facing towards the said way (Gali).

Click here to view full judgment.

KANTA BAI Vs. UMASHANKAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address