Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal It arises out of a suit instituted by them claiming pre-emption in respect of a room which is alleged to have been sold to defendant No.1 by defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and also for a permanent injunction against the said defendant preventing him from opening a door in the western wall of the room with a view to enable the inmates of his house to use the court-yard of the plaintiffs house.

2. The disputed small room appears to be a part of the plaintiffs house and lies on the western side of the house ; but admittedly on the case in the plaint, the said room was owned and occupied by defendants 3 and 4. How they came to own it is not explained, but that is immaterial. This small room opens on the eastern side towards the common court-yard of the house, and it is also the admitted case of the plaintiffs that the court-yard was being used jointly by the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4, who were in occupation of the room, for their convenience. The plaintiffs further alleged that some six days before the institution of this suit on 6th of August, 1948, they noticed that defendant No. l, who has his house adjoining the dispute

Click Here to Read the rest of this document