PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. BHERULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Following substantial question of law is involved in this appeal :-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the defendants/appellants for mandatory and prohibitory injunction alleging that the plaintiff and the defendants are neighbours having their house adjoining to each other.

(3.) The defendants started construction of the house after demolishing his old house. The construction continued for 10-15 days when the plaintiff was not in the town. When the plaintiff reached to his house on 5.5.1996, he found that that the defendants have constructed some projections measuring 3 feet x 10 feet hanging over public chowk. The defendants also raised some construction adjoining to the wall of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff's grievance is that because of the said projections of the defendants, the plaintiff will not be able to construct his projections of the same type. The plaintiff's claim is based on his alleged right that every person has right to use the land of chowk and, therefore, the plaintiff has also equal right to use the land of the public chowk and, therefore, he can construct his projections hanging over the public chowk.