MEHTABCHAND Vs. SAH NANOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Mehtabchand and Bhanwarlal, from the judgment of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dated the 28th of January, 1948 confirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif, East Jaipur City, dated the month of July, 1947, by which the defendants have been restrained from opening doors towards the plaintiff's staircase, and have been further directed to close the doors which have been held to be recently opened by them.

(2.) THE plaintiffs Sah Nanoolal, Sardarmal and Devkumar filed a suit against Daroga Gulabchand in the court of Munsif East, Jaipur on the 30th of January, 1942 with the allegation that the defendant had opened a new doorway in his house leading to the staircase of the plaintiff's house on or about the 21st of January, 1942, and they prayed for an injunction against the defendant for closing the door and for an injunction restraining him from constructing any such doorways in future. On the 7th February, 1942, the plaintiffs filed another suit against the same defendant alleging that the defendant had, after the institution of the first suit, opened two more doorways leading towards the staircase of the plaintiff's house on the 5th of February, 1942. THEy claimed that the new doorways may be closed and the plaintiffs may be allowed Rs. 20/-by way of damages. Both these suits were simultaneously tried by the Munsif. THE defendant pleaded that two of the disputed doors were very bid and the third was constructed by the father of the defendant himself when he purchased this house. THE Munsif decided both the suits by one judgment on the 30th of July, 1942, and decreed the claim of the plaintiffs in so far as it related to closing of the disputed doorways, but dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs for damages. THE District Judge. Jaipur on the 25th of September, 1943 confirmed the decision of the Munsif at d rejected the defendant's appeal. THE defendant went in appeal to the then High Court, Jaipur, which allowed the appeal of the defendant and set aside the decree of the court below on the ground that the defendant was benami purchaser of the property, in which the disputed doorways were constructed, and that it was necessary to implead Bhanwarlal as one of the defendants in this suit, in whose name the title deeds of the property stood. THE case was, therefore,' remained for de novo trial with the direction to add Bhanwarlal as one of the defendants and after trying both the suits simultaneously, decided them on the 10th of July, 1947. THE findings were not different from those that were arrived at previously by him. THE case then went to the court of the District Judge, who, on the 28th of January, 1948, confirmed the decree of the Munsif. THE defendants have now come to this court on the grounds that the decision of the courts below on the question of fact that the disputed doorways are new is erroneous.

(3.) BOTH the appeals therefore, fail and are dismissed with costs. .