RAM VILAS Vs. GABOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON -petitioners had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioners in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Kanod with the averments that the parties are the descendents of a common ancestor. That after partition of the property the court -yard w is kept as the joint property to be used by all the coheirs. The suit related to the portions shown as A, B, C, D the wall construction at position E to F use of portion G to H in the map Ex. 1, filed along with the plaint. According to the plaintiff, defendants were intending to construct a latrine and a bath -room at portions A, B, C and D and had constructed a wall at portion E. That, they were keeping their cattle at that portion. That, at portion G to H they were putting their cow -dungs etc. and were thereby creating nuisance to the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE case put up by the defendants was that the disputed portion was not the joint court -yard rather was the exclusive property of the defendants, on which they were enjoying peaceful possession for last forty years. Regarding the construction of the wall, the contention was that it was constructed in the year 1950 and no nuisance was created.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge after considering the evidence and the 'farakties' (Partition deeds) Exs. 7, 8 and 9 arrived at a conclusion that some Other parsons were also entitled to the use of the property. The learned Judge however held that the fourth issue had no bearing on the suit. Regarding the first three issues, the conclusion drawn was that the courtyard was of course joint property of the parties but the long user of the' same by the defendants entitled them to do so on the principle of adverse possession, Issue No. 2 relating to the defendants placing cow -dungs and making inconvenience to the petitioners was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. In view of -the aforesaid findings, the learned trial Judge did not hold the plaintiffs entitled to any relief regarding the portions, the defendants were enjoying for a long time but granted relief so far as portion G to H was concerned and the suit was decreed to that extent to the effect that decreed to that extent to the effect that defendants were prohibited from piecing cow -tungs etc. at portion G to H in Ex. 1 and also not to obstruct the plaintiffs for using the stair case shown at portion G. The Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for this limited prayer and dismissed the same for the other reliefs sought.