PADMA CHARAN PUROHIT Vs. UMA PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant against reversing judgment.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent instituted the suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is his neighbour. The defendant demolished his old house with a view to remodel/renovate the old one. She had absolute right, title, interest and possession over the wall of her house. Defendant has no semblance of right, title and interest over the wall. He illegally scrapped away and removed 10 inches from the outer side of northern wall of her house and put a plinth bent on her plinth. He digged the wall and made construction of a wall to height of four feet on her plinth. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff pleading, inter alia, that the suit wall was a common wall. He approached the plaintiff and requested her to give consent to construct the wall by subscribing half of amount, as it was a common wall being used by both the parties. The plaintiff did not agree. There was urgent need of remodelling of this old house. Having no other way out, he constructed a new wall of his own without causing any harm to the northern side wall.