R.S.A.No. 3660 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3660 of 2009 Date of decision:6.5.2011 Ramswaroop ......Appellant Versus Umrao Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Nirban, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for respondents **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from affixing the windows, doors and parnala etc. towards the suit property. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff and performa defendant were owners in possession of the suit property bearing khasra No.108. The said khasra number abutted khasra No.78 on the Eastern side which belonged to the contesting defendants. The defendants wanted to affix doors, windows, ventilators and parnala etc. in the Western wall of their house to the R.S.A.No. 3660 of 2009 2 detriment of the plaintiff. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the wall was being raised by the defendants in their own land and not on the boundary line of the suit property. The defendants had every right to affix doors, windows etc. in the said wall. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as lleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing of present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff is owner in possession of khasra R.S.A.No. 3660 of 2009 3 No.108 and the defendants are the owners of khasra No.78. The said khasra numbers adjoined each other. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants wanted to open windows, doors, ventilator etc. towards the property of the plaintiff in the common wall, whereas, the case of the defendants is that the wall had been constructed by them in their own land. It is a settled proposition of law that no doors, windows, ventilators etc. can be opened by a party in a common wall to the detriment of the other party. Mark -PA is the report submitted by the Local Commissioner dated 7.9.2007. A perusal of the report of the Local Commissioner Mark 'A' does not lead to the inference that the wall in question has been constructed on the boundary line of khasra Nos.78 and 108. As per report Ex.DW2/A, khasra No.78 is lying vacant. Ex.PW-3/A, site plan, also does not reveal that any wall has been constructed on the boundary line of khasra Nos. 108 and 78. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince me that the wall had been constructed on the boundary line of khasra Nos.78 and 108 so that it could be termed as a common wall. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 06, 2011 anita