LODHA, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.

2. The houses of the parties and some other persons are situated in the same compound in the city of Jaipur. In order to understand the nature of the dispute arising between the parties it may be useful to refer to the plan Ex.1 filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs house is shown in the plan in yellow colour, and the defendant Harinarains house has been shown in blue colour. It may be stated here that the defendant Harinarain died during the pendency of this litigation and is now represented by his heirs who are respondents Nos. 1 to 7 before me. The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that the Tibara shown with the mark G in the plan is the joint property of the parties, and that the portion marked H contiguous to G towards the west is common to the parties and Bharatmal. It was alleged that on 13.11.1957 the defendant raised a wall between the portions G and H and put shutters in it and after closing the door of the plaintiffs room F opening in the Tibara G at the point E the defendant deprived the plaintiff altogether of the use of the Tibara G as well as H which the plaintiff used as a passage for coming into and going out of the room F. It was further alleged that the defendant had wrongfully converted the Tibara G to his own exclusive use by making it a kitchen. The plaintiffs case in the first instance was that the Tibaras G and H jointly belonged to the parties, and in the alternative he pleaded that in case he failed to prove his joint ownership to the Tibara G he was still entitled to use the Tibara G as passage by way of easement. On these allegations the plaintiff prayed that the wall raised by the defendant between the Tibaras G and H may be ordered to be demolished and so also the obstruction put by the defendant at the plaintiffs door E. He also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff in using the Tibaras G and H as a passage for coming into and going out of the room F. The defendant denied the plaintiffs suit and pleaded inter alia that the Tibaras G and H exclusively belonged to the defendant and that the plaintiff had not acquired any right of way by prescription through the said Tibaras.

2. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Munsiff (West) Jaipur City dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed appeal, but the same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur, City No. 1 by his judgment dated 12-2-1964. Consequently, the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the courts below had wrongly disallowed his application for amendment of the plaint which he had submitted in the trial court on 27-11-1961. It may be observed that by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to introduce a case for easement of light and air through the door E, which he had not set up in the plaint filed by him as back as on 4-1-1951. The learned Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the proposed amendment would introduce a new case. I have looked into the plaint and it is amply clear from the allegations made therein that the plaintiff claimed a right of passage through the Tibara in question on the ground that it was jointly owned by the parties and that in any case he had acquired a right of way by prescription through it. There was no question of light and air raised in the plaint at all. The application for amendment was also considerably belated. In these circumstances, I do not see any ground for interfering with the discretion exercised by the lower courts in disallowing the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.

5. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below had wrongly shut out his case based on the ground of easement simply because he had alle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document