In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1313 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:24.4.2008 Inder Singh .....Appellant v. Dhara Singh .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Panipat whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been partly allowed and the defendant has been restrained from obstructing the light and air of the house of the plaintiff coming through the window and ventilators and further from obstructing the flow of water of the roof of the house of plaintiff through water droplets (Parnalas) which are in existence in the suit land, in any manner, by way of raising any sort of construction in the shape of septic tank etc. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession in respect of the suit land measuring 14' x 25' marked by letters ABCD in red in site plan annexed with the plaint. The learned trial Court vide its R.S.A. No.1313 of 2008 [2] judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was observed that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove that he is owner in possession of the suit land. The learned lower appellate Court has modified the decree of the trial Court. It was observed that both the parties have no right to the suit land. In any case, the defendant had no right to obstruct the air and light of the house of the plaintiff through window and ventilators. Besides, he has no right to obstruct the flow of water on the roof of the house of the plaintiff through water droplets (Parnalas) which are in existence in the suit land by raising any sort of construction in the shape of septic tank etc. The learned lower appellate Court in support of its obsevations has referred to the case law. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has submitted that the plaintiff had not claimed any easementary rights in respect of his house and, therefore, the learned lower appellate Court has gravely erred in granting the said relief. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed in its entirety and the modification of the judgment of the trial Court as made by the learned lower appellate Court is without basis and is not supported by any law. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that it has been held by the learned lower appellate Court that the disputed land does not belong to either of the parties. Therefore, the defendant has no right to construct on the land which is not owned by him thereby affecting the easementary rights of the plaintiff. The fact that no plea was taken it may be noticed that the Court can always grant lesser relief in terms of Order 7 Rule 7 C.P.C. No question of law arises for consideration of this Court. The R.S.A. No.1313 of 2008 [3] questions of law as formulated by the appellant in para 8 of the grounds of appeal are in the nature of issues between the parties rather than questions of law. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 24, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No