PETITIONER:
KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAI KUMAR JAIN & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1586 1996 SCC (2) 23
JT 1996 (1) 77 1996 SCALE (1)153
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel for the parties. This Court issued notice confining to the question as indicated in our order dated August 21, 1995 which reads thus:-
"It is contended for the petitioners
that interpreting the operative part of
the degree of the trial court, namely,
"It is, accordingly declared that the
defendants have absolutely no right to
close the windows and ventilators in the
northern wall of the plaintiffs house
and he interfere with the same in any
way causing diminution in the light and
air to which the plaintiffs are entitled
to and have been enjoying as of
contractual right consequently they are
directed to remove the walls or any
other restructure made adjacent to the
northern wall of the plaintiffs house
within tow months failing which the
plaintiffs house within two months
failing which the plaintiffs shall have
right to get the same removed in due
process of law in the interest of
finally of the dispute it is hereby made
clear that the defendants shall be at
liberty to raise their wall after
leaving a set back of 3 feet from the
northern wall of plaintiffs so as to
enable to later to enjoy the light and
air in terms of the sale deed of the
year 1921."
even the construction made in the year
1947-48 upto the first floor is also
sought to be removed by wrong
interpretation sought to be put upon the
degree. It is contended that in fact the
defendants construction was latter in
point of time though the petitioners had
not objected. Therefore, the respondents
now cannot object and claim demolition
of the even existing structure except
the one which is constructed in the year
1982-83. Issue notice on this limited
question."
The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a photograph in which it is seen that there exists a double-storeyed building and besides that the offending wall was constructed. The said wall is now found to have been constructed recently as found by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate as well as the High Court. In view of the above finding, the apprehension of the appellants that existing double-storeyed building would be demolished in execution of degree of the trial Court is unfounded. What is to be demolished is the construction unauthorisedly made by the appellants as found by the Commissioner who was examined as PW-8 whose report is Ex.1 and the field Book 1/A.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No costs.