RAM KUMAR KESHRI & ORS. Vs. LAKHICHAND KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued in this case to the opposite party to show cause as to why this application be not heard and disposed of at the admission stage. This civil revision application is by defendant appellants in the Court below against the order of injunction passed against him. The plaintiff opposite party has filed a suit claiming right of easement as also title in a particular piece of land against the defendant appellants. He has also prayed for an injunction pending the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff's case, inter alia is that he purchased the house in the year 1966, which house is by the side of the defendant's house. The allegation is that the defendant is constructing a wall which may affect the light and ventilation of his house. By a written statement filed by the defendant appellants it has been contended that the case of right of easement cannot be pleaded by the plaintiff since he claims to have purchased the home in the year 1966 and the suit has been filed within less than the statutory period of 20 years. The Courts below have granted injunction against the defendant petitioners from constructing the wall in his land. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the case of the plaintiff for easement is bound to fail because he has filed the suit within less than 20 years of the purchase. Mr. R.K. Verma appearing for the opposite party submitted that the plaintiff purchased the house with easementory right from the vendor. It was also submitted by Mr. Sinha appearing for the petitioner that the plaintiff cannot claim both title and easementory right over the land in question. Whether or not the plaintiff purchased the house with easementory right in the year 1966 is a question which may have to be decided in the suit. But it is an admitted position that he purchased the house in the year 1966 and he has filed the suit within less than 20 years. In my opinion, for the purpose of injunction the courts below have erred in coming to a finding that the plaintiff has a prima facie case at this stage. I think the injunction has been wrongly granted to the plaintiff -opposite party. The impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court, which have been challenged in this civil revision are accordingly, set aside. However, any of the observations made by me whether or not the plaintiff has a prima facie case shall not prejudice the case of the plaintiff at the trial. The application is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.