SYED HABIB HUSSAIN Vs. KAMAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, jaipur City, dated October 5, 1960.

(2.) THE parties own properties on Mirza Ismail Road, in Jaipur City. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Hamid Hussain who, according to them, was the owner of their house under gift deed Ex. 6 dated January 1, 1931 made by Nawab mukarram AH Khan (D. W. 2) in favour of Hamid Hussain. Adjacent to it, towards the east, is a piece of open land (AMNY) measuring 83' x 16', and the plaintiffs claim that it also belonged to them as it was a part of the gifted house. The property of the defendant is situated along the eastern boundary of this open piece of land, and the defendant claims to be the owner of that property on the basis of a purchase from the "nawab to whom both the properties once belonged. The defendant constructed a building on the plot of land purchased by him from the Nawab, and as he opened a number of doors and windows on the ground and the first floor facing the eastern portion of the house of the plaintiffs, and also built a balcony on the first floor, the plaintiffs felt aggrieved because, according to them, this caused "bepardgi" of the persons using the open piece of land, and their house. The plaintiffs also felt aggrieved because the defendant laid a sewer line under the aforesaid open piece of land (measuring 83' x 16' ). and built four water spouts and laid some cement pipes on it.

(3.) THE defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs altogether. He pleaded that the house occupied by the plaintiffs did not belong to them, that the open piece of land AMNY was not their property and that it belonged to Nawab Mukarram All khan who had given him the right to use it. He also pleaded that there was no "bepardgi" of the house of the plaintiffs by the construction oi the doors and windows in his western wall, and that there was no interference with the right of privacy of the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the sewer line was laid with the permission of the Nawab. As regards the water spouts, it was pleaded that the defendant had every right to use them. Some other pleas were also taken in defence, but it is not necessary to refer to them.