1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 324 of 2009 1. RAMRAO S/O DEORAO UPASANE R/O MAHASUL COLONY, AKOLA .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. MAHADEO PUNDLIK WANKHADE THR LRs, SMT. SM WANKHADE AND OTHERS R/O BHIM NAGAR, AKOLA 2. UDAY S/O MAHADEO WANKHADE R/O PUNE MUNICIPAL CORP. PUNE 3. AJIT S/O MAHADEO WANKHADE R/O BHIM NAGAR, OLD CITY, AKOLA 4. RAJARAM S/O MAHADEO WANKHADE R/O BHIM NAGAR, OLD CITY, AKOLA 5. ABHAY S/O MAHADEO WANKHADE R/O BHIM NAGAR, OLD CITY, AKOLA 6. MADHAV S/O SAMARTHA GAWAI R/O NEW TOSHNIWAL LAYOUT, AKOLA 7. SMT. ASHATAI W/O MADHAVRAO GAWAI R/O NEW TOSHNIWAL LAYOUT, AKOLA .. RESPONDENT/S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14 , 2009 . Heard Shri Joshi for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making construction near the compound wall as said construction obstructed air and light to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff 2 further pleaded that the construction which was sought to be made by the defendants also evaded the right to privacy of the plaintiff. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had an easementary right of air and light and the construction sought to be made by the defendants had evaded the easementary right of the plaintiff as well as the right of the plaintiff to privacy. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts. The construction cannot be sought to be demolished merely because the same is in violation of some of the rules and regulations framed by the authorities, as, in case the authorities were desirous of taking any action against the defendant, they could have independently taken so. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP