1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2003 Uttam Tathu Patil deceased through his L.R.s 1. Dhrupatabai Uttam Patil died [L.R.s appellants nos. nos.2 to 7 already on record]. 2. Shivaji Uttam Patil, age 60 years, occ. Service, 3 Sambhaji Uttam Patil, age 53 years, occ. Service, 4 Jijabrao Uttam Patil, age 48 years, occ. Service, 5 Gulabrao Uttam Patil, age 46 years, occ. Service, 6 Bhalerao Uttam Patil, age 44 years, occu. medical practitioner and agriculturist, 7 Sau. Vatsalabai Sahebrao Patil, age 63 years, occ service, All residents of Shirud, taluka Amalner, district Jalgaon. Appellants [ Orig. defendants ] 2 Versus Zinga Tathu Patil since deceased through L.Rs. 1 Abhimanyu Zinga Patil, age 55 years, occ. Engineer R/o. Ninad (129) Adarsh Colony, Deopur, Dhule. 2 Vikas Zinga Patil died – L.R.s 2A) Kavita Vikas Sonawane, age 40 years, occ. Nil, 2B) Akash Vikas Sonawane, age 14 years, 2C) Amruta Vikas Sonawane, age 10 years, All residents of plot No.48, Pramod Nagar, Sector 1, Deopur, dist. Dhule. 3 Smt. Salunkabai Zinga Patil, died – L.R.s 3A) Abhimanyu Zinga Patil, age 60 years, occ. Engineer, r/o. Ninad (129), Adarsha Coloy, Deopur, district Dhule. 3B) Mrs. Indumati Baburao Patil, age 53 years, occu. Household, 3 C/o. Baburao Narayan Patil [ Tel.Engineer], Telephone Quarters, Jalgaon. 4 Mrs. Indumati Baburao Patil, age 48 years, occ. Household, c/o. Baburao Narayan Patil [Telephone Engineer], Telephone Quarter No.2, Block No.3, Jalgaon. .. .. Respondents Shri Pawan Pawar, Advocate holding for Shri M. H. Patil, Advocate for appellants. Shri Girish Rane, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30 th November, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri Pawar holding for Shri Patil for the appellants and Shri Girish Rane for the respondents. 2. Parties are real brothers namely; Uttam and Zinga sons of Tathu Patil, residents of Shirud, taluka Amalner, district Jalgaon. They are residing separately with their family members in the 4 ancestral house having common partition wall. The suit is filed by original plaintiff Zinga Patil for perpetual and mandatory injunction against defendant brother (appellant) when he started reconstruction of his house. The dispute is over opening of a door as entrance which is touching his door of the house in right angle of 90 degree which obstructed his peaceful enjoyment and right to privacy. So everyday there is quarrel and now their relations are strained. Plaintiff objected to the said entrance which often obstructed his entry to his house at the threshold. A photograph is also shown to this Court about the exact position of the entrances of these doors meant for their respective houses. Plaintiff wanted that defendant brother should not have made entrance touching his door, and instead, where he has opened the window in the same wall little apart. He has no objection if the window is shifted to the place by closing the impugned entrance door by the defendant. The trial Court has understood the grievance of both the brothers and dispute was properly appreciated by both the Courts below. 5 There is no perversity in recording the finding. The same was observed by the 1st appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. So there is no difficulty for this Court further to understand the real dispute. No need for re­appreciation. Thus, there is no substantial dispute or issue involved in this appeal. Such domestic quarrel between two brothers who are close neighbours if not checked in time, may take any serious shape. So in order to avoid that it is necessary to uphold the finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff by both the Courts below. Therefore, in such a matter, this Court is inclined to issue direction to the defendant [appellant] to close the impugned door for entrance of his house immediately and fix a window to its place and make a new entrance by opening a door for him in place of the window in the same wall so that both brothers shall live peacefully with regard to their privacy. 3. After hearing both the sides, appeal stands dismissed summarily at the admission stage with direction to act upon for carrying out construction of shifting door for new entrance as 6 directed above, within 30 days since perpetual and mandatory injunction orders are operating against the defendant. The impugned judgment and order of both the Courts below are confirmed. Appeal stands dismissed with costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] pnk/sa58503