KRISHNABAI PANDURANG SALAGARE Vs. SAVLARAM GANGARAM KUMTEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The few facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. The plaintiff and the defendant Pandurang Balaji Salagare were neighbours. The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming various reliefs in connection with certain acts of the defendant which were in the nature of encroachments upon his properties. Out of the seven reliefs claimed three reliefs D, E and G were granted on February 25, 1918, and injunctions as prayed for in those clauses were issued against the defendant. After the decree the defendant was said to have made certain encroachments in respect of which the present darkhast was filed in 1923. Before the darkhast was filed the defendant had died; and the darkhast proceeded against the two widows of the deceased judgment-debtor in respect of certain encroachments. The Court dealing with the darkhast disposed of two out of these matters with which we are not concerned. Those two matters related to the removal of the plaster and the encroachment of the defendant's roof mentioned in the decree. Both those reliefs were granted. But with regard to the other reliefs the learned Joint Subordinate Judge observed as follows:-" The plaintiff besides asked for some other reliefs not awarded by the decree."

(2.) Treating those other reliefs as not covered by the decree the learned Judge disposed of the darkhast.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed to the District Court; and during the pendency of the appeal the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor transferred their property to Kondo Ganesh Deo. The two reliefs, with reference to which the appeal was preferred, were that the first floor gallery of the plaintiff had been blocked up at one end as a result of the defendant's wall, and the second complaint was that the defendant's wall projected over plaintiff's property to the extent of two inches. The learned Assistant Judge, who heard the appeal, was of opinion that both these reliefs were sufficiently covered by the prayer G under the decree, and, accordingly, referred the matter back to the Court of first instance in order that a Commissioner might be appointed and the dispute with reference to those obstructions decided.