Skip to content


Shiveji Prasad and anr. Vs. Motilal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 326 of 1970
Judge
Reported in1974WLN(UC)233
AppellantShiveji Prasad and anr.
RespondentMotilal and anr.
Excerpt:
.....defendants be allowed to make an opening in latrine.;the defendant's right to use the lane in question as a passage for their weeper has been recognised by the court below. the defendant have undoubtedly a right to make an opening in their latrine which is said to been ordinary type of latrine from which the sweeper may remove the night soil and clean the latrine. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h)..........defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.2. at the time of admission of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant abandoned all the grounds taken in the memo of appeal except that the lower court should have clarified that the defendants would not be restrained from making an opening in the latrine of their house so that their sweeper may come by the lane in question to remove the night soil. i have, therefore, heard learned counsel for the parties on this point. with their help i have examined the site plan also & find that there is a latrine is the defendants' house contiguous to the lane in question .the defendants' right to use the lane in question as a passage for their sweeper has been recognised by the court below. in this view of the matter the.....
Judgment:

C.M. Lodha, J.

1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.

2. At the time of admission of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant abandoned all the grounds taken in the memo of appeal except that the lower court should have clarified that the defendants would not be restrained from making an opening in the latrine of their house so that their sweeper may come by the lane in question to remove the night soil. I have, therefore, heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point. With their help I have examined the site plan also & find that there is a latrine is the defendants' house contiguous to the lane in question .The defendants' right to use the lane in question as a passage for their sweeper has been recognised by the court below. In this view of the matter the defendants have undoubtedly a right to make an opening in their latrine which is said to be an ordinary type of latrine from which the sweeper may remove the night soil and clean the latrine. Even the learned Counsel for the respondents was not able to oppose this prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellants which appears to be very just and reasonable.

3. Accordingly, I partly allow this appeal, and modify the judgment and decree by the Additional District Judge, Gangapur to this extent that the defendants shall have a right to make an opening in their existing latrine on the lane so that their sweeper may come through the lane and remove the night soil from the latrine The parties are left to bear their own cost.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //