CSA 46/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil 2nd Appeal No.46/2008 Padam Chand Jain Versus Sitaram & Ors. Date of Order ::: 24/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vishwjeet Mantri, for appellants (plaintiff) Mr. JP Goyal, for respondents (defendants) Instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff assailing judgment & decree dt. 09/01/08 in CFA-34/06 whereby Addl. District Judge No.2, Alwar modified judgment & decree dt.19/10/06 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) No.3, Alwar who decreed civil suit-23/05. Plaintiff (appellant) filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction basically with the grievance that permission granted in favour of defendants is not in accordance with Municipal laws as opportunity had not been afforded to them and thus sought an injunction that per permission granted to the respondents for raising construction, it will certainly deprive them of right of air & light which they are enjoying for sufficient long time. The learned trial Judge framed eight issues and on appreciation of material on record CSA 46/08 //2// finally observed that as regard permission granted (Ex.A.39A) in favour of defendants on 12/05/99 was not in accordance with rules and further observed that since it violates easementary right of plaintiff, which they might have been enjoying for sufficient long time, accordingly restrained defendants from raising construction over suit shops vide decree dt.19/10/06 ad infra: "ूितवादी गण सं 1 व 2 के िवǾƨ इस आशय की ः थाई िनषेधा£ा पाǐरत की जाती है िक ूितवादीगण बजाजा बाजार अलवर मɅ िः थत वादी की हवेली के दिक्षण मɅ िः थत अपनी िववािदत दकान ु की छत पर िनमार्ण करने व छत पर से वादी एवं अन् य पडोिसयो के आवागमन व वादी के हवा व रोशनी के सुखािधकार मɅ बाधा उत् पन् न करने एवं वादी की दसरी मंिजल मɅ िनकले हए िखडकी जंगले झरोखे ू ु दरवाजा व मोरी को बंद करने से िनषेध रहे ूितवादी गण सं 3 Ʈारा ूितवादी सं 1 व 2 के पक्ष मɅ जारी की गई भवन िनमार्ण ः वीकित िदनांक 12-5-99 को शून् य एवं अूभावी घोिषत िकया जाता है " Against which, appeal was preferred and vide judgment dt.09/01/08, the appellate court while upholding plea of plaintiff, however, modified the decree observing that after keeping 3 & half feet in width reserved, permission be granted in favour of defendants for raising construction of one storey, which will not affect balcony. Operative part of decree (supra) reads as infra : CSA 46/08 //3// "िवचारण न् यायालय के ूँ नगत िनणर्य एवं िडबी िदनांक 19-10-06 को अपाः त िकया जाता है तथा आदेश िदया जाता है िक अपीलाथȸ ूितवादीगण अपनी िववािदत दकान की छत पर वादी ु ूत् यथȸ के आसार से दिक्षण की ओर वादी ूत् यथȸ केहवा रोशनी व आवागमन के सुखािधकार को सुरिक्षत रख् ने के िलए साढे तीन फुट चौडी जगह छोड कर िनयमानुसार एक मंिजल का िनमार्ण करने के िलए ः वतन् ऽ है । खचार् मुकदमा दोनो पआ अपना अपना वहन करेगे िडबी परचा इसी ूकार तैयार िकया जावे ।" Counsel for appellant has vehemently contends that plaintiff has easementary right to have an open space over suit shops which has been causing adverse affect to their right of air & light and once there is no permission validly granted under Municipal law, no such construction can be raised thereon and the appellate court committed manifest error of law in modifying the decree granting permission in favour of respondents even after keeping their right of way 3 & half feet in width reserved which too for one storey over shops in question. This fact has not come in controversy that respondents are owner of shops and adjoining the building of plaintiff having certain windows opening towards shops of defendants on first floor. Taking note of material including permission granted in favour of defendant for raising construction; easementary right of CSA 46/08 //4// plaintiff, besides taking note of Commissioner's report (Ex.3), appellate court finally modified the decree granted by trial Judge, directing to keep a way of 3 & half ft in width reserved and granting permission for raising construction of one storey only so that it may not disturb easementary right of air & light and it may not be raised to the extent of balcony which may cause any obstruction. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the impugned judgment passed by courts below. All the submissions made by Counsel for appellants require re-appreciation of evidence The findings recorded by appellate court are duly supported by cogent material on record based on proper appreciation of facts and law. No substantial questions of law arise in this second appeal, which may warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/46CSA08.doc.