IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.788 of 2005 (O.&M.) Date of Decision: 16.4.2009 Amar Singh (since dead) through L.Rs. ....... Appellant through Shri B.B.S.Sobti,Advocate. Versus Darshan Singh and others. ....... Respondents through Shri Amit Rawal,Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.4210-C of 2009 The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the legal representatives of the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 3 of it are permitted to come on record. R.S.A.No.788 of 2005 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 28.1.2002 and 11.10.2004 passed respectively by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeals of the R.S.A.No.788 of 2005 (O&M) -2- .... plaintiff-appellant were dismissed and the counter- claim of the defendant- respondent no.3 was accepted. A suit was filed by the appellant for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from raising any construction towards the southern side of the property bearing no. B-IV-1122, situated at Mohalla Sudan, Ludhiana so as to block the air and light through window and ventilators on ground floor and as well as on first floor, as fully detailed in the plaint. It was claimed that he was a tenant on the aforementioned property and was using air and light from that side since 1927 and now the respondents wanted to block the window and ventilators. Upon notice, respondent nos.2 and 3 appeared and filed their written statement controverting the averments of the appellant. Respondent no.3 also submitted a counter claim for possession of portions marked with letters X, X1, X2 and X3 and shown in red colour in the site plan attached therewith and for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the appellant to remove and demolish the projections hanging on his property. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff has acquired right of easement by way of prescription to use light and air from the disputed window and ventilator opening towards the property of defendant?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has encroached upon the property of the defendants?OPD R.S.A.No.788 of 2005 (O&M) -3- .... 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction prayed for?OPP 4. Whether defendant is entitled to counter claim?OPD 5. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence before it, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant and partly accepted the counter claim of respondent no.3. The appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the suit and the appeal of the appellant. At the hearing, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the parties, on instructions, stated that the parties are agreed that the window and the ventilators which were in question in the suit and which are the source of light and air to the premises of the appellant shall not be obstructed in any manner, but in view thereof, the projections which are hanging and encroaching upon the property of the respondent/ counter- claimant shall be removed by him. In view of the agreement between the parties, it is not necessary to pass a detailed order and this appeal is disposed of in terms thereof because the impugned judgments and decrees, more or less, conform thereto. April 16,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge