R.S.A.No.2183/2012 and R.S.A.No.2184/2012 are

filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the common

judgment and order passed in R.A.No.185/2003 and

R.A.No.198/2003 respectively, on the file of the Principal

Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysore

(hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court') in

and by which, the first appellate court dismissed the suit

filed by the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.1021/1997 on the

file III Additional -I Civil Judge, Mysore (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Trial Court').

2. Parties are referred by their ranking in the Trial

Court.

3.

The above suit in O.S.No.1021/1997 is filed by

the plaintiff seeking declaration and consequential relief of

permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from

4

granting approval and for a mandatory injunction directing

the

1st

defendant

to

demolish

the

unauthorised

construction.

4.

It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the

owner of the property bearing Door No.4554 measuring 50

feet x 70 feet. That there was a residential house of the

plaintiff existed on the said property. That in the year

1997, plaintiff obtained licence from the 2nd defendant to

change the roof of the said house. That upon the advice

of the Engineer, plaintiff had applied for modified licence

and intended to demolish the northern wall of the said

house and put up a new construction with a distance of

4.3 feet away from the northern compound wall of the

plaintiff. At that time, the 1st defendant had filed a suit in

O.S.No.590/1997 and had obtained an interim order of

injunction against the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant had

issued modified plan and licence directing the plaintiff to

put up construction leaving set back of 5.3' feet from the

northern compound wall of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the

plaintiff had filed a memo in the aforesaid suit in

O.S.No.590/1997 undertaking to leave the set back of 5.3

feet and pursuant to the said memo, the interim order of

5

injunction was modified. Subsequently, the plaintiff learnt

that the defendant under the guise of re-roofing his

residential building, had removed the roof of his ground

floor

premises

and

without

sanctioned

plan,

unauthorisedly had put up first floor premises. The

defendant had erected huge door and two large windows

facing the proposed construction of the plaintiff disturbing

his right to privacy. That the said doors and widows are at

a distance of 2 1/2 feet from the northern compound of

the plaintiff. That fixing of the said doors and windows are

in

violation

of

the

building

rules

and

regulation.

Construction of a balcony within the setback area amounts

to unauthorised construction. Installation of metal stair-

case, shaded projection in the setback area, has

encroached upon the territory of the plaintiff to the extent

preventing the plaintiff from rising his northern compound

wall. The situation of doors and windows has threatened

privacy of the plaintiff. Hence, sought for the aforesaid

relief.

5.

In response to the summons issued, the 1st

and 2nd defendant appeared and 1st defendant filed

written statement. 1st defendant, in his written

6

statement, denied the case of the plaintiff and contended

that the construction put up by the 1st defendant on his

property is within the permissible limit of deviation which

is not in excess of 25% of F.A.R. The issuance of

provisional order and confirmation by the 2nd defendant

was at the instance of the plaintiff which constrained the

1st defendant to institute a suit in O.S.No.693/1996 and

had obtained order of status-quo. That since the plaintiff

intended to put up construction on the setback area in

violation of the building bye-laws, touching the property of

the 1st defendant and intended to open the door towards

the construction of the 1st defendant, he was constrained

to file suit in O.S.No.590/1997 and had obtained an order

of interim injunction. That the 1st defendant has put up

the doors and windows in his own building leaving

necess