SH MOHAMMAD ATA HUSAIN Vs. HAJI QADIR BAKSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plan which has been made a part of the decree of the learned single Judge of this Court will be found useful in understanding the nature of this case. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sold to the defendant the building described on this plan by the letters I H G F E B. It will be noticed that this building is a part of a much larger building which belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from using the door EJ as a passage. There are other reliefs with which we are not at present concerned. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. The lower appellate Court dismissed it. On second appeal, a learned Judge of this Court decreed the suit in part. What he did was to grant an injunction to the defendant that he shall not use the door EJ except for the purpose of passage for the sweeper, for the purpose of cleaning the latrine near the letter B. The learned Judge held that for other purposes the defendant had the doors P and Q to use.

(2.) The plaintiff has appealed to this Court and ha contends that the learned Judge should not have allowed the defendant to use the door EJ even for the purpose of use of the sweeper.

(3.) The appellant's argument is that the learned Judge of this Court was in error when he assumed that the defendant has an easement of necessity for letting the sweeper use the door EJ.