VIJAY KUMAR PATHAK Vs. DINESHCHAND BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against whom the appellate Court of III Addl. Distt. Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/96 by judgment dated 20-7-95 passed a decree that the disputed Gali was joint ownership of the plaintiff/respondent with a right to use it jointly and a further injunction that the defendant will not raise any construction in this joint Gali and defendant will not obstruct the plaintiff from opening his doors and windows in this Gali and a direction to remove whatever wall or construction has been raised by the defendant. By this judgment the appellate Court has reversed the judgment of Addl. Civil Judge Class I, Morena in case No. 102-A/92 decided on 20-7-95. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was for the relief now granted by the appellate Court. The suit was filed on 10-4-89.

(2.) IT was a simple suit in respect of a portion described as disputed Gali by red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint. The claim was that the plaintiff purchased the adjoining land enclosed with green colour lines in that plan from Savitribai vide sale deed Ex. P-1 on 17-7-88. In this sale deed all the rights belonging to Savitri, in the disputed Gali shown in red colour, was also sold to the plaintiff. On the opposite side of this Gali there is land of defendant Siyaram who has died during the pendency of this appeal and Vijay is his legal representative. The grievance of the plaintiff was that Siyaram and Vijay wanted to obstruct this Gali by raising construction. They wanted to obstruct plaintiff's passage in this Gali and his right to use this Gali as approach to his purchased portion. The defendant had denied that the Gali was joint or there was any right of easement either purchased by plaintiff or accrued to him otherwise.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court the parties went on trial on following issues-