Decided on May 05,1952

RAMPERSHAD Respondents


Sharma, J. - (1.)This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff-appellant for a permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from passing through the 'chauk' belonging to the plaintiff, and also from interfering with the plaintiff's closing of the door between the said 'chauk' and the house of defendant 1 lying to the east of it. In the alternative, it was prayed that in case permanent injunction as prayed above be not granted, the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from passing through the 'chauk' for any other purpose except residential purposes.
(2.)The plaintiff purchased his house , from Lakshmi Narain Kalyan Baksh, who, in turn, had purchased it from Har Sahai. Har Sahai had purchased the house from Sheonarain, who was the original owner of the house of the parties. After Sheonarain sold the house now belonging to the plaintiff to Har Sahai, he sold the house lying to the east of the said house to defendant 1 on 26-5-1916. Har Sahai sold his house to Lakshmi Narain Kalyan Baksh by the sale deed dated 15-101921, and the latter sold it to the plaintiff by the sale deed dated 12-12-1944.
(3.)The plaintiff's case is that there existed one door belonging to the defendant in the well between the two houses, and two doors belonging to the plaintiff in the said well. After the sale to the defendant, Har Sahai, who was the then owner of the plaintiff's house, wanted to bring a suit for pre-emption of the property purchased by defendant 1. On this a compromise was arrived at between the fathers of Har Sahai and defendant 1, who were both minors at that time. An agreement, Ex. 2, was, therefore, executed by the father of Har Sahai as well as the father of defendant 1 in their capacity as guardians of their sons. It was provided in that agreement that the parties had settled their dispute about preemption of the house sold to defendant 1, inasmuch as Har Sahai gave up his right of pre-emption and stipulated to close the two doors belonging to him in the wall between the two houses. Defendant 1 was allowed to pass through the 'chauk' for residential purposes only, so long as Har Sahai liked. Har Sahai was, however, entitled to call upon defendant 1 to close the door whenever he so liked, and if defendant 1 did not do it, Har Sahai was given a right to have the door closed through Court. The plaintiff says that he no longer wants the defendants to use his house as a passage to the defendant's house, and called upon defendant 1 to close the door, but he did not listen. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using his house as passage to the defendant's house, and to restrain them from interfering with the plff.'s closing the door. In the alternative he prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the passage for any other purpose except residential purposes.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.