Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/53/1991 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 53 of 1991
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
=======================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=======================================================
JATASHANKER
CHANDRASHANKER JOSHI - Appellant(s)
Versus
DURGABEN,
W/O OF CHANDRASHANKER
JESHANKER
JOSHI & 4 - Defendant(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
UDAY VYAS for MR BHARAT J
SHELAT for Appellant(s): 1,
None for Defendant(s) : 1,
MRS
KETTY A MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1 - 5.
RULE SERVED for
Defendant(s) : 1.2.2
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 05/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-original
plaintiff, wherein following substantial questions of law have been
framed :-
“(1) Whether
the right of air and light acquired by the plaintiff either by
express or implied grant or constructive grant can be curtailed
and/or extinguished by the defendants-respondents?
(2) Whether
by complete closure of the door and ventilators and the apertures by
the defendants, there will be substantial diminition of air and
light?
(3) Whether
the Courts below erred in holding that the kitchen of the property of
the plaintiff will receive sufficient air and light from 2′ hole in
the wall constructed by the respondents. and whether the said hole
will remain open in future for all times to come and whether it can
be considered to be sufficient?
(4) The
Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the registered deed of
reconveyance, dated 11-8-1941 at Ex.49.
(5) Whether
the case of the plaintiff is governed by section 33 or section 60 of
the Easement.”
Learned
counsel, Mr.Uday Vyas appearing for learned counsel, Mr.B.J. Shelat
states that he has no instruction and inspite of efforts, he has not
received any instruction.
In
the circumstances, the present Second Appeal stands disposed of as
having become infructuous.
Liberty
to revive in case of difficulty.
(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil
Top