SHIVPUTRAPPA PARAPPA KAMSHETTI Vs. SHIVRUDRAPPA KALAPPA HULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from raising the plaint wall and placing their roof thereon and from interfering with it in any way. Defendant No. 1 denied the claim, and contended that the plaintiff was not the-exclusive owner of the plaint wall; that the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were the joint owners thereof; that each had a right to make use of the wall and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction sought.

(2.) Before the Subordinate Judge the parties put in a Pursis as follows: As it is settled that the issue whether the wall in dispute in this case is of the independent ownership of the plaintiff or of the joint ownership of both the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 is not to be decided in this suit, we are not going to examine any witnesses.

(3.) So that the Judge said: On the pleading of defendants themselves I think the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. If the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the plaint wall, it goes without saying that defendants cannot raise it. Even if it be assumed that the wall is a joint wall as contended by defendants, I think defendants cannot raise it without the consent and permission of the plaintiff.