Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/115/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 115 of 2007
=========================================================
VEPARI
UMARBHAI JAMALBHAI & 5 - Appellant(s)
Versus
ABDULRAUF
GULAM MAYODIN VORA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK BUKHARI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 6.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
Date
: 13/08/2007
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
the learned advocate.
The
appellants, defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.42/1991, have
preferred this Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and
order dated 22nd August, 2006 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Patan in Regular Civil Appeal No.214/2002.
The
respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing City Survey
No.2327 Seat No.45 (Nagar Panchayat No.E/5/27) situated at Radhanpur.
The defendants are the owners of the house next to the plaintiff on
the northern side. The defendants made certain constructions on the
wall between the two houses and placed ventilators and windows in it.
The subject matter of dispute are the said constructions. The
plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.42/1991 in the Court of
Civil Judge (J.D.), Radhanpur. According to the plaintiff, the suit
wall was of his exclusive ownership; the defendants had no right to
make any construction over it and had no right to create easementary
right by placing disputed windows and ventilators. The disputed
windows and ventilators abut on the property of the plaintiff
compromising the privacy of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore,
prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants.
The
suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement at
Exh.23. The defendants did not dispute the disputed constructions;
but according to the defendants they were the exclusive owners of the
suit wall. The learned Civil Judge, by judgment and order dated 9th
October, 1998, held that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the
suit wall. The learned Civil Judge was, however, of the opinion that
the disputed windows and ventilators were too high in the wall to
obstruct the privacy of the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned
Civil Judge allowed the suit partly. The defendants were directed to
remove the offending ceiling that they had constructed. Feeling
aggrieved, the defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.214/2002
in the Court of Additional District Judge, Patan. The learned
Additional District Judge upheld the contentions raised by the
plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge also observed that
the defendants had no right to place windows or ventilators on the
suit wall. In view of the said finding the lower appellate Court
dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present Appeal.
In
view of the undisputed facts, the impugned judgment and order does
not warrant interference. No question of law much less a substantial
question of law arises in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in
limine.
(Ms.
R.M.Doshit, J.)
/moin
Top