CHATURBHUJ Vs. BHOODEV PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 11/1/2010 passed in Civil First Appeal No.57/2000 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur whereby and whereunder, while allowing the appeal, plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dtd. 9/5/2000 passed in Civil Suit No.05/1998 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Bharatpur whereby and whereunder plaintiff's suit was decreed, has been set aside and further though the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, however, recorded a finding that disputed wall would remain common between both parties and respondents-defendants have been allowed to put their roof/load over the common wall.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

(3.) The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that both parties are neighbors and the dispute is in relation to a middle wall having width of 14 inch. Appellant-plaintiff instituted a civil suit claiming his sole ownership over the wall in question, sought a decree for permanent injunction against defendants to restrain them not to put any roof/load over the wall in question and not to open any window, allas etc. Respondents-defendants submitted written statements and denied plaintiff's claim alleging that the wall in question is not of sole ownership of plaintiff but is for common use by both parties as well as is in joint ownership of both parties. Both parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.