The court upheld the temporary injunction based on the partition deed and relevant material on record, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the appellate court's decision.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.06/2018 preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs against rejection of their temporary injunction application by the learned Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur vide its order dated 10.01.2018 in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.150/2016.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants stating therein that they are family members and their ancestral house was partitioned way back on 11.07.1969. It is averred that the plaintiffs are enjoying easementary right of air and light over an open 'Gali' of four and a half feet width towards eastern side of their portion in which the defendants were trying to raise construction to deprive them of their easementary right. Their temporary injunction application filed alongwith the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.01.2018 which was successfully challenged by them by way of civil miscellaneous appeal which has been allowed by learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 03.02.2021.

3. Assailing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Appellate Court erred in interfering with well reasoned findings recorded by learned trial Court. He submitted that the learned Appellate Court did not appreciate that the subject land was under their ownership and possession since last 50 years and their rights in it could not have been curtailed by way of an injunction. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order dated 03.02.2021 be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. A perusal of the order dated 03.02.2021 reveals that findings are well reasoned and are based on cogent material on record. After examining the partition deed executed between the parties, the learned Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that a 'Gali' of four and a half feet width towards eastern side of the portion falling the share of the plaintiffs, was kept as common way and the factum of this partition deed was not specifically denied by the defendants in their reply to temporary injunction application and therefore, the petitioners were restrained from raising construction in this common way with a further direction to maintain status quo. Findings of the learned Appellate Court are also substantiated by the Commissioner report dated 07.12.2016 which also reflects that windows of the plaintiffs are opening towards this open piece of land. Even learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that the subject land is an open piece of land without any construction thereupon. The learned Appellate Court has allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs after appreciating all the relevant aspects of the matter and the findings do not suffer from any perversity or patent jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.

6. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.