SURINDER KUMAR BANSAL Vs. NARINDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 1.8.2000, vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned sub Judge (3) Shimla, dated 30.7.1998, decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction as against the appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case that that the respondent hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as against the appellant, hereinafter also referred to as the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that a he is owner in possession of one plot of land bearing Khasra No. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 496/6 situated in Station Ward Bara Shimla, which plot was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1980, on which he raised four storeyed house. It was alleged that the defendant is owner of the adjoining plot of land comprised in Khasra No. 496/2 on which the defendant had also raised a three storeyed building. The defendant after his construction provided an iron railing at the edge of the boundary line of the plot of the defendant adjoining the property of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the said iron railing has been provided by the defendant at the extreme end of the stairs leading to the building of the defendant. It was further alleged that there is about 2 to 3 space between the end of the stairs and the railing of the defendant and the building of the plaintiff which is approximately 48 in length. The said space is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has provided the down pipes for the drainage of the waste water as well as the sewerage pipes. The plaintiff has also provided catch pit at each floor which has been connected to the main whole of the drainage system of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the plaintiff has also provided a cement mortar lintel above the said pipes within his own area. The defendant has no right, title or interest on the said space which has been shown in ABCD in the plan annexed with the plaint.

(3.) It was further alleged by the plaintiff that in the year 1982 some dispute arose between the parties to the present suit and the defendant instituted a suit against the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant (present plaintiff) from interfering in any manner with the stairs or railing of the plaintiff or to provide any window etc. towards the building of the defendant. In that plaint, the present defendant has taken an emphatical stand that the boundary between the respondent and the plaintiff is the extreme edge of the stair case where the defendant has provided iron railing. The portion shown as ABCD in the plan annexed with the plaint was admitted to be that of the plaintiff by the present defendant. It was further alleged that a few days back, the defendant has started interference over the portion of the land comprised in Khasra No. 496/6 owned and possessed by the plaintiff particularly in portion shown as ABCD in the plan annexed with the plaint. The defendant has also threatened to utilize the space marked as ABCD for his exclusive use depriving the plaintiff of his right. The defendant has also caused slight damage to the said slab and threatened to extend the iron railing over the said portion of the plaintiff to which the defendant has no right, title or interest. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.