SUSHEEL KUMAR DASS Vs. JAJAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is brought against the decisions of the two courts below declining relief to the plaintiff for a declaration that the wall on the east belongs to the plaintiff and that the constructions made upon the wall shall be removed by a mandatory injunction. The case was rested on a plea that the wall exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. The two courts have found the wall to be a party -wall, of which the defendant has laid his own construction in various ways: at the ground floor east of the wall and in the first floor upon the wall itself. The manner of how the rights over the party -wall have to be exercised are governed through case law and the Punjab and Haryana High Court from the days of Lahore has taken the view that a co -owner of a party -wall may do any act upon such a wall, free of obstructions from the other, so long as no prejudice is caused to the other owner exercising a right on the party -wall. This is indeed at variance with some of the views held by the other courts where a party -wall cannot be subjected to any alteration unless the other co -owner consents to the same. The prevalent view of this court following the decision of the High Court at Lahore holds that party -wall is capable of being exploited by both the co -owners and it would not require consent of other co -owner. In the decision cited by the counsel for the appellant herself in Sardari Lal Gupta v/s. Siri Krishan Aggarwal : AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 439, this court has actually confronted the divergent views of various High Courts and dissented from the views expressed by Nagpur, Bombay, Mysore, Rajasthan and Madras and held that every owner of a party wall is entitled to use it in a reasonable way. In the above said judgment, it has been held as under. -

(2.) The second appeal is dismissed on the above terms.