SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Kar) 462

H.N.TILHARI
MOULASAB RAJASAB MULLANAVAR – Appellant
Versus
NAGANAGOUDA PARVATAGOUDA – Respondent


Advocates:
Jayakumar, S.PATIL, U.L.NARAYANA RAO

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) -THIS is defen dants' second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, from the judgment and decree dated 18. 10. 1990, whereby the lower appellate Court, Civil Judge, Gadag (Shri. Kazi Md. Mujeebulla), dismissed the defendants' first appeal (Regular Appeal No. 40/90) and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28. 2. 1990, delivered by Sri. A. S. Patil. Principal Munsiff, Gadag, in Regular Suit No. 159/85 (Naganagouda Paruatagouda harlapur v. Moulasab Rajesab Mullanauar ). whereby the trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs' suit for mandatory injunction, after having declared that the plaintiffs have got right to receive light and light through window "w" and they have also got the right to discharge the roof water through the water spout "s" and they have got a right to repair the AB wall by passing in ABCD space and directed the defendants-appellants to remove the super structure constructed by them in the suit ABCD space, within 3 months from the date of decree, as well as issued prohibitory injunction directing not to construct any structure over ABCD space.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed the sui

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top