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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1626

SUDESH BANSAL
Balendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Khemchand – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pradeep Singh, for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal has been preferred by and on behalf of appellant-plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1998 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Neem ka Thana in Civil Suit No.215/93 (88/78) whereby and whereunder although the plaintiff's suit for prohibitory injunction has been decreed but the trial court has declined to grant decree for mandatory injunction and further the judgment and decree has been affirmed in first appeal No.18/1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar vide judgment dated 15.10.2011 filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

2. Heard counsel for appellant and peruse the material available on record.

3. The dispute between the parties is in relation to a gali having width of 3 ft. situated towards north of plaintiff's haveli. Plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 28.06.1978 alleging inter alia that the gali in question is of ownership and possession of plaintiff on the basis of patta of haveli (Exhibit-1A) and since defendants have opened their windows, ventilators, nala, pernala of their house in first floor, second floor and third floor towards the gali in question which violates the right of privacy of pla

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