A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petition which raises rather important points, arises under the following circumstances:-

( 2 ) THE Execution petition No. 341/74 in O. S. No. 100/67 was filed for the execution of the decree in A. S. No. 94/69 allowing the appeal preferred against the dismissal of O. S. No. 199/67.

( 3 ) TO the said E. P. objections were filed stating inter alia that the decree was inexecutable inasmuch as it was merely a declaratory decree. The objections were overruled and the E. P. was allowed. The appeal A. S. 135/76 preferred against that order was dismissed. Hence this revision.

( 4 ) PENDING A. S. No. 135/76 the revision-petitioner - Judgment-debtor herein filed O. S. No. 285/78 challenging that the decree obtained in a. S. No. 94/69, as inexecutable and pending the O. S I. A No. 3058/79 was filed for injunction restraining the respondent-decree-holder herein from executing the decree; when rejected C. M. A was filed in this Court and therefore the C. R. P. as well as the C. M. A should be disposed of by a common order.

( 5 ) BEFORE adjudicating upon whether the decree is inexecutable the circumstances in brief that led to this revision may be noticed. O. S. No. 199/67 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff herein for declaring that he is entitled to free air and light and the extended construction of the balcony by 3 feet on the first floor and also the pillars constructed on the ground floor thereby diminishing and affecting the right of the plaintiff to free air and light may be caused to be removed by issue of a mandatory injunction and further restraining the defendant from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to free air and light. The said suit was dismissed. As against that A. S. No. 94/69 was preferred which was allowed and the decree so passed in A. S. Was sought to be executed through E. P. No. 341/74. When it was allowed on being objected to A. S. No. 135/76 was preferred and when the said A. S. was dismissed, the petitioner-judgment-debtor herein preferred the revision.

( 6 ) THE principal contention of Sri. S. Satyanarayana prasad the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decree so passed is not executable since it is merely a declaratory decree as there was no consequential direction. The only alternative for the respondent-decree-holder herein is to file a suit and get the decree executed. The counter contentions a of Sri Syryanarayana Murthy the learned count self or the respondent are that the decree as it mandates congerring the right to have the decree executed by getting the obstructions caused. Removed even if there is any ambiguity in the decree so passed, reference could be had to the pleadings and the judgments passed thereon to comprehend what the decree contemplated.

( 7 ) THE decree passed in A. S. No. 94/69 may now be read:"in the result the judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside holding the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction with regard to the removal of the extended balcony and the pillars constructed by the defendant adjoining the windows of the plaintiff in the ground floor and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the light and air that were being enjoyed by the plaintiff". The case law cited for and against in this behalf may be noticed. In Ramanuja Naicker v. Seethalakshmi Ammal, (1958) 2 Mad LJ 512 while dealing with the decree referred to the clause contained therein which reads as follows:-"iii (a) that the 8th defendant be and hereby is entitled to past maintenance due to her mother. 7th defendant for a period from 12 years prior to suit up to 27/11/1950, the date of death of 7th defendant, at Rs. 100 per mensem: (b) for the return of the sum of Rupees 500 given by her husbands family to that of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3; (c) to be reimbursed by plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 the sum of Rs. 500 spent by her for the funeral of her mother (7th defendant)". This clause was fol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document