JOTINDRA MOHAN MITTER Vs. PROBODH KUMAR DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and the defendant are owners of adjoining premises which originally belonged to certain people called Dutt, but which were partitioned in 1892; the plaintiff's premises being lot B in the return of the Commissioner of partition and the defendants premises being lot Rule The defendant's premises are known as No. 24 Kasi Dutt Street. The defendant purchased them at a Registrar's sale on 7 July 1928. Soon afterwards at all events by October, he commenced to make certain improvements in connexion with these premises. These improvements have brought him into collision with the plaintiff who makes throe complaints.

(2.) The first complaint is that the defendant was making wrongful alterations to the common passage leading northwards to Ramjan Ostagar Lane. On this point the learned Judge found for the plaintiff and before us the question of common passage has been settled by agreement. Our decree in this appeal will direct by consent that the learned Judge's order as to the common passage be vacated and that in lieu thereof the terms of settlement be carried into effect.

(3.) In the second place the plaintiff complains that the defendant has obstructed the access of light and air to the window marked A in the north wall of the plaintiff's kitchen. This room was, in the partition return, called the metaighur or room for making sweets. The window in question is on the ground floor and faces the defendant's Baitakhana. Above the space between the two are the first floor rooms of the defendant. To the east of the ground floor space there was originally, as the learned Judge has found, an open archway in which at some time or other the defendant or his predecessors had put a gate in which, according to the plaintiff, there were open slits through which the light could penetrate. The archway itself, above the gate, was according to the plaintiff, open. The plaintiff complains that the defendant has blocked up the archway and put in a door entirely obstructing the light which formerly reached window A and that in January 1929 the defendant further obstructed the window by putting an iron sheet right against it.