Skip to content


Nathulal and anr. Vs. Mool Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 227 of 1970
Judge
Reported in1974WLN(UC)242
AppellantNathulal and anr.
RespondentMool Chand
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
easement act - windows, ventilators, water spouts & chhajjas on nohara belonging to plaintiff--findings of fact regarding demolition of chhajjas and closure of spouts not to be interfered. - 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) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of..........'chhajjas' be demolished and the spouts be closed.4. aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the civil judge, jaipur district, jaipur. hence this second appeal.5. the plaintiff's ownership to the 'nohara' in question is established beyond all manner of doubt. from the 'patta' ex. 10 it is proved that the 'nohara' once belonged to lalchand lalchand gifted it to his daughter imrati vide gift deed ex. 7 and imrati sold the 'nohara' to the plaintiff who is admittedly in possession of the same. the first appellate court has concurred in the findings of the trial court regarding the spouts and the 'chhajjas'. the findings are of pure fact and based on good legal evidence. they appear to be just and proper and no case.....
Judgment:

C.M. Lodha, J.

1. This is a defendants' second appeal.

2. The plaintiff 's case was that the defendantsfhad put up two windows and fixed two 'Chhajjas' over them over-looking his 'Nohara', and further that they had constructed two water spouts, one in the ground-floor and the other in the first floor so as to discharge water from their house through them. It was prayed that the spouts, windows and ventilators be ordered to be closed, and the 'Chhajjas' be ordered to be demolished. The defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership to the 'Nohara' and further pleaded that in any case the spouts and the windows had been constructed with the consent of the plaintiff.

3. The trial court found that the 'Nohara' belongs to the plaintiff and that the 'Chhajjas' on the windows had been recently constructed. As regards the spout on the ground-floor, marked 'A' in the plaint, it was found that this too had been recently constructed. With respect to the other spout on the first floor marked 'H' it was found that, no doubt, there existed previously a spout here when the defendants' house was 'kachcha' but while reconstructing it the defendants had increased the burden by putting the spout at a greater height and had thereby increased the volume and force of water discharged through it. In view of the aforesaid findings the trial court decreed the suit] in part and directed that the 'Chhajjas' be demolished and the spouts be closed.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Hence this second appeal.

5. The plaintiff's ownership to the 'Nohara' in question is established beyond all manner of doubt. From the 'Patta' Ex. 10 it is proved that the 'Nohara' once belonged to Lalchand Lalchand gifted it to his daughter Imrati vide gift deed Ex. 7 and Imrati sold the 'Nohara' to the plaintiff who is admittedly in possession of the same. The first appellate court has concurred in the findings of the trial court regarding the spouts and the 'Chhajjas'. The findings are of pure fact and based on good legal evidence. They appear to be just and proper and no case has been made out for interfering with the same.

6. The result is that I do not see any force in this appeal, and hereby dismiss it but without any order as to costs.


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