KARAM SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts giving rise to this Regular Second Appeal are that the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the three openings namely, A, B and C in the Eastern wall of his Haveli. Further relief sought was to the effect that the defendant be directed to restore the wall of his Haveli to its original position and that he be also restrained from opening any window and door etcetera in the wall in dispute in future too. The plaintiff further averred that the parties had entered into a compromise dated 12 10.1971 wherein the defendant had agreed not to open any window or door in the said wall. The defendant also filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the plaintiff which was dismissed. It is also averred by the plaintiff that now the defendant is backing out of the said compromise and that these acts of the defendant were not permitting the plaintiff to enjoy his (plaintiff's) property.

(2.) The said allegations were controverted by the defendant. It was alleged by the defendant that on the Eastern side of his Haveli is located a regular Gali and not the property of the plaintiff. There were three windows and one door opening into the Gali. The defendant claimed to be enjoying the rights of air and light through these openings. But he denied the execution of any compromise and challenged its admissibility. The trial Court, after reappraising the evidence, came to the conclusion that the site in dispute was not a private property of the plaintiff and the house of the plaintiff did not adjoin the property of the defendant on the Eastern side. It was further found that the parties did execute the compromise dated 12.10.1971. However, the said document was found to be inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court further held that the terms and conditions of the said compromise were not binding on the parties and that the dismissal of the earlier suit filed by the defendant is of no consequence as the same was dismissed as withdrawan with permission of the Court to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. It was also observed that the defendant had a right to open the doors in the wall in dispute and the plaintiffs was not entitled to any injunction as prayed for. Resultantly, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff challenged the finding of the trial Court in appeal and the appellate Court after confirming the findings aforesaid, dismissed the appeal.