SAU RAJANI Vs. SAU SMITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) By a judgment dtd. 11/12/2019, a Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, held in the course of deciding a second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908("CPC") that the suit instituted by the appellant is barred by Ss. 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976("the Act").The High Court reversed concurrent findings of the trial court in the suit and of the first appellate court.

(3.) In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to the plaint in the suit - Regular Civil Suit No 775 of 1993- instituted by the appellant before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati. The appellant has pleaded that the second respondent (Amravati Housing and Area Development Board) allotted Block No 4/6 situated on the first floor at Tope Nagar, Amravati to her on 16/7/1986. The appellant claims to be in possession of the residential tenement. The first respondent is stated to be in occupation of a ground floor tenement in the same building bearing Block No 4/2. According to the appellant, the first respondent made an illegal and unauthorized construction in an open vacant site situated in the northern and eastern side of the block. This has been depicted in a plan, which is annexed to the plaint. The first respondent is alleged to have constructed four rooms, as a consequence of which the appellant claims that her easements have been affected. The appellant has alleged the following disturbances to her easements: