Dave, J.—Both these cross-appeals arise out of the same suit and therefore they are disposed of together.

2. The case between the parties is a small one but it has a long history extending over more than 10 years. The suit was originally instituted on 17th July, 1948 by Suraj Karan, father of Mst. Umrao Kanwar and Sardar Kanwar, who are appellants in appeal No. 214/1953. The original defendants were Ganga Bux and his son Mohanlal Ganga Bux died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court and therefore the only contesting defendant left there, was Mohanlal. He has also died since then and his widow Mst. Ram Pyari and his two daughters Mst. Gulab and Mst. Gopali are respondents in appeal No. 214/1953 and appellants in appeal No. 22G/1953. There were three other proforma defendants, viz Manakchand, Motiram and Pooranchand. Manakchand is also dead and his name has been struck off by order of the court dated 1-9-1955 in appeal No. 214/53. The other two defendants Motiram and Pooranchand, are still respondents in both the appeals, but they are only proforma parties; they have taken no interest in this case and have not cared to appear in this Court.

3. It is common ground between the parties that the houses of the original plaintiff Surajkaran and the contesting defendant Gangabaxs son Mohanlal are situated in a locality called Rasta Moti Singh Bhomia at Jaipur. That portion of the plaintiffs house which is in dispute, faces west. On the first floor of that house, there is a big room just above the door. In the northern wall of this room, there is a door which leads to a small ante-room. The dispute between the parties relates to windows and ventilators in this anteroom and on the roof of this room. In this small room, the plaintiff had two windows measuring 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 facing west. Just above those windows, there were two ventilators measuring 9" x 9" and above the two ventilators there are two small ventilators of round shape. On the roof of this room, there were two more windows facing west.

4. The plaintiffs case was that outside the house on the western side, there was a chowk which was common property of the plaintiff and the defendants. The house of the contesting defendants Gangabux and Mohanlal stands on the southern side of this chowk. It was alleged by the plaintiff that these two defendants had constructed a verandah measuring 346" long, eastwest, and 4-1/4 wide north south in this common chowk. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had no right to construct a building on this common property. It was further alleged that the defendants had constructed a wall adjoining the plaintiffs house with the result that one window and two ventilators in the plaintiffs ante-room and one window on its roof which have been marked as D.E.F. and G. in the site plan Ex. 7 presented with the plaint, were closed. It was further stated that just above the plaintiffs door and below the windows, there was a projection (Chhaja) on the western side and the defendants wall also rested on this projection. It was, therefore, prayed that the defendants be directed to demolish the verandah marked B-C in Ex. 7. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the court does not consider it proper to get the verandah demolished, the defendants Gangabux and Mohanlal should be directed to demolish the construction over the plaintiffs Chhaja and they should be further directed to open the plaintiffs window and Talis marked D.E.F. and G. The plaintiff further prayed for an injunction restraining the said two defendants from making any constructions in the chowk in future.

5. It has already been mentioned above that Gangabux defendant died soon during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. Mohanlal defendant who was the main contestant in the suit, denied the plaintiffs assertion to the effect that the place on which he had erected the verandah and the building above was common property. It was further stated that the plaintiffs predecessors-in-ti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document