1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 433/2007 (Chandrashekhar Pandurang Wagh VERSUS Ganpati Shrawan Watighare(Dead) Thr. L.R's (1) Smt.Laxmibai wd/o Ganpati Watighare & 6 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri S.D. Deshpande, counsel for the appellant. Smt. Biala, counsel for the R-2 to 7. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had illegally and unauthorisedly fixed the doors and windows on the western side of the house and the privacy of the plaintiff was disturbed in view of illegal fixing of doors and windows. According to the plaintiff, the new house was constructed by the defendant illegally, without seeking the sanction from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation or other authorities. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and further denied that the easementary right of the plaintiff was in any way affected by 2 the opening of the doors and windows in the house of the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff did not have any right whatsoever, much less, an easementary right on the open land which was not owned by the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant that he had merely renovated his house which was in dilapidated condition and, therefore, suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed with costs. The trial Court, after appreciating the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that he was the owner of the space admeasuring 5 Feet X 34 Feet and the construction of the defendant and the affixing of the doors and windows had affected the easementary right of the plaintiff. According to the trial Court, the defendant had no right to carry out construction. The Court, therefore, granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment passed by the trial Court, the findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed. The first appellate Court, on a re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving his ownership over 5 Feet X 34 Feet of 3 land. The Court further came to a conclusion that the space between the two houses i.e. the house of the plaintiff and defendant was 14 Feet in width and, therefore, there was no question of infringement of easementary right in any manner. The first appellate Court further held that there was absence of reliable and cogent evidence to prove that the right of privacy of plaintiff was, in any manner, disturbed by the opening of the doors and windows in the house of the defendant. The first appellate Court held that the absence of sanction from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation or other authorities was the matter between the authorities and the defendant and the plaintiff had nothing to do with it. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of facts and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE