1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Roshan Lal. vs. LRs. Of late Shri Shanker Lal Lakhara. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.430/2005 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2004 PASSED BY SHRI PATANJALI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.3, UDAIPUR IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.66/2000. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 3.1.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. S Srimali, for the appellant. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below in the judgments dated 20.5.2000 and 13.10.2004 passed by the trial court and first appellate court 2 respectively. The plaintiff deceased Shanker Lal filed suit for injunction against the defendant/appellant claiming his right over the lane situated in between the houses of the plaintiff himself and the defendant and also claimed easementary right on the basis of his 2 windows, 2 ventilators and water outlet which according to the plaintiff, he constructed more than 20 years ago. He was enjoying the benefit of air, light and drainage for ore than 20 years from the time of filing of the suit. The defendant put stone slabs to close the way of lane. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to remove the stone slabs obstructing the way and restrained the defendant from putting any obstruction on the windows and ventilators and against the free flow of water. These findings of the trial court were upheld by the first appellate court. According to learned counsel for the appellant, appellant's father Chiman Lal filed one suit against the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title which was decided by the court on 30.1.1944. In that suit, the dispute about the alleged lane between two houses was also involved and in that case, the court held that though 3 there is a lane in between two houses but the plaintiff's predecessor has no right over the land. However, in the same judgment, the trial court that the defendant's ventilators, if are in existence, then he will have right to use those ventilators. According to learned counsel for the appellant in view of the above, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff's predecessor's right was denied by the Court in the year 1944. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the two courts below as well as the facts of the case. Two courts below considered the judgment of the Munsif Court, Udaipur delivered in the year 1944 and thereafter, held that the plaintiff is purchaser of the property and he raised construction and opened 2 windows and 2 ventilators in each of the floor of his house and he proved this fact by evidence that he is enjoying the air and light in the lane and that enjoyment is more than 20 years old. Any decision given in the year 1944 lost its significance if the plaintiff has proved his enjoyment for more than 20 years prior to filing of the suit. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgments. 4 In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya