VINOD KUMAR Vs. CHANDER PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendant who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 25.7.2011 wherein while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, lower Appellate Court restrained the defendant not to stop the plaintiff from raising a wall at point EF shown in the site plan Ex.P1 upto half of the depth of the common wall between the houses of the parties as half of the portion of the common wall can be said to be owned by the plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that she had purchased the house shown within letters ABCD in green colour vide sale deed dated 12.3.1999. The house of the defendant adjoins towards northern side of the house of the plaintiff and there exists old wooden door at point EF shown in the site plain in the wall AB. The plaintiff wanted to raise wall at point EF but the defendant was influential and forcible person and was not allowing the plaintiff to raise wall at point EF. Accordingly, the suit was filed. Various objections were taken by the defendant including cause of action, abuse of process of law, guilty of suppressing of material facts, entitlement of special cost. It was contended that the ancestral house of the defendant was on the north to the house in dispute situated at ward No. 2 in the prime area of Dasuya Town and that the plaintiff was short of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the total sale price at the time of purchase of ground floor of the house and had promised to pay it to the defendant after some time.

(3.) The defendant had agreed to as the plaintiff had good relations with the family of the defendant but the payment was not made and the plaintiff always put off the matter on false pretexts. The matter was brought to the notice of local police before whom son of the plaintiff in the presence of the respectables took some more time for the payment. Accordingly, it was held that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit.