SHANTI LAL Vs. GAINDI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 06.12.1982 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby judgment and decree dated 28.06.1976 passed by learned Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, has been set -aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed in toto. Plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against Smt. Chhuttan Bai, predecessor -in -title of defendant -appellant and other five defendants, who are respondents no. 2 to 6 herein, on 28.10.1972. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 4 are co -sharers in house No. 512 ('haveli') situated in Rasta Hanumanji Gali Chobiyan choukdi, Bisheshwarji, Jaipur. Defendant no. 5 is tenant of defendant no. 4 in a room on third floor towards northern side of 'haveli'. Defendant no. 6 is also tenant of defendant no. 4. He has taken room on rent on fourth floor towards southern side. Defendants no. 5 and 6 have no right of way through 'ravish' (balcony in the chowk facing rooms of the upper stories) towards the plaintiff's house. Defendant no. 1 Chhuttan Bai has her share on second floor towards western side of the 'haveli', in which there is an old 'parnala' (spout). Some time back, chhuttan Bai also got a new 'parnala' constructed, breaking the wall, which has opening into the 'ravish', owing to which dirty water collects on the 'ravish' and causes filth there. It causes obstacles for the plaintiff to use his house towards northern side on the second floor and it also adversely affect the health of the family. Dirty water of the house of defendants is collected in a 'pavandi' (pit) in the chowk through the 'parnala'. There is no permanent arrangement for exit of the water. Sometimes water in 'pavandi' (pit) overflows and spreads in the chowk, thus causing nuisance. The 'pol' (room like entrance of the house) of the 'haveli' requires immediate repair. The present doors of the 'pol' also require repair and even if the same are repaired, they would not survive long and therefore, new doors are required to be built. Prayer was therefore made that defendants be restrained from throwing garbage (filth) and dirty objects; they may be directed to make necessary arrangement for exit of dirty water from the chowk. It was also prayed that the defendants may be directed to get the 'pol' repaired; to get the preset doors of the 'pol' repaired immediately and thereafter to get new doors built. The defendant no. 1 be required to close the spout, and further restrained from using 'ravish' in front of the rooms of the plaintiff in the 'haveli' and be further required to keep the doors of the 'pol' closed during night.

(2.) DEFENDANTS no. 1 Chhuttan Bai and defendants no. 4, 5 and 6 separately filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. Defendant no. 1 Chhuttan Bai, in her written statement, disputed correctness of the site plan produced by the plaintiff and asserted that all the rooms shown in yellow colour did not belong to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that there are two staircases in the 'haveli'. The 'ravish' on all the floors is joint property of all co -sharers and therefore their tenants have also right to use both the staircases and the 'ravish'. There was only one old 'parnala' (spout) on the rooms of the first floor and allegation that new 'parnala' has been got constructed, was denied.

(3.) FOLLOWING issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: -