SAROJ DEVI Vs. SATPAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Nuh, dated 19.09.2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs against the judgement and decree dated 31.07.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, dismissing their suit for permanent injunction, has been partly allowed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that injunction, which has been granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs, restraining the appellant-defendant from constructing window, door, sun shade (Chajja) towards the street, cannot be sustained in the light of the fact that five feet wide street is not the exclusive ownership of the respondentplaintiffs as has been held by both the Courts below. His further submission is that the window, door and the gate admittedly have been constructed prior to the filing of the suit, which open on the road and a finding has also been given by the Courts below that to protect the window and the door from the vagaries of the nature and inclement weather, projection is required and this would not amount to any encroachment upon the street. The street has been found to be jointly owned and being used by appellant-defendant and the respondent-plaintiffs and, thus, the appellant-defendant has a right to construct a projection/sun shade towards the street. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting-aside the judgement and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Nuh and restoration of the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the impugned judgements.