KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DHARAM PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent verdict of the Courts below granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) It is contended by the plaintiff that Muni Lal, father of the plaintiff and the defendant, purchased a vacant plot and put up residential house over there. The house has two gates. Both the parties are using the same separately for entering into their respective portions. The defendant enters to his portion through gate No.1, whereas the plaintiff enters through gate No.2. The defendant had started demolishing a window in his portion with an intention to carve out a door to make an opening in the portion of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement contended that the parties are not in exclusive possession of the house property constructed by Muni Lal. The house in question is still joint. There was no proper partition of the same. The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction as against the co-sharer.