PESTONJI NUSSERWANJI Vs. NEMCHAND MANECKCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff herein by his plaint claims to be the owner of a certain house in Gola Lane which contains an agiary and he sued the original defendant, who is dead, (and whose representatives are the present defendants) for trespass upon the said premises, for that the original defendant committed a trespass upon the said house and Agiary by erecting a new wall between them in such a way as to brick in certain window frames in the plaintiff's house and also certain cornices thereof.

(2.) The defendant's house is situated immediately to the north of the plaintiff s.

(3.) The plaint as originally filed carelessly set forth the plaintiff's case, which is not surprizing, seeing what the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination with regard to his knowledge of its contents. It was first amended before the hearing however, to bring his case more in accordance with the facts. But Mr. Robertson, counsel for the plaintiff, had not gone very far in his opening of the "plaintiff s; case, before he felt that if the plaintiff were bound down to his plaint as amended, as aforesaid, he must fail, because upon that plaint, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the premises. Accordingly at Mr. Robertson's request I allowed the plaint to be amended further by the addition of para 1A, which states that "the plaintiff is also in possession of the said house and premises. "