SHAMBHUPRASAD UMIASHANKAR Vs. LALBHAI BHIKHABHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties in this case are the owners of adjoining houses in Ahmedabad. The defendants-respondents raised the height of their house and in so doing cut off a pankh or weather-board projecting from the side wall of the plaintiffs house over defendants land. It appears that this was mostly done after the suit was filed. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the cutting of the pankh and for the restoration of what had been cut. They also alleged that the defendants had made certain encroachments on their wall and prayed for the removal of these.

(2.) The trial Court found that there had been a slight encroachment on the first floor and ordered its removal, but it dismissed the suit otherwise. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs. In appeal the Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal with costs.

(3.) In this second appeal learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contends that his clients were entitled to relief either by mandatory injunction or at any rate by damages in respect of the cutting of the pankh and that they should have been given their costs also in that connection. It is further contended that the Courts ought to have found that there was an encroachment on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. As to this last point both the lower Courts have found as a fact that, there is no encroachment on the ground floor, and I do not consider that any substantial point of law arises.