- (1.) This is second appeal by plaintiff no. 1 Vijay Kumar and legal representatives of plaintiff no. 2 Hari Chand having been non-suited by both the courts below. The plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff no. 1 is owner of houses no. 5769 and 5769/1 whereas plaintiff no. 2 is owner of houses no. 5767/68. Houses of plaintiffs include stores and latrines depicted in the site plan.
(2.) Defendant no. 1 purchased property no. 5796/4 vide sale deed dated 11.7.1989. However, the open land measuring 11' 6" x 6' 4" did not belong to vendors of defendant no. 1. This is open space vesting in defendant no. 2 Municipal Council (proforma defendant no. 2). Plaintiffs' grievance is that defendant no. 1 wanted to reconstruct her property as godown and she wanted to demolish latrines and stores of the plaintiffs so as to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 1 also wanted to open windows etc. and to make projection over the said land without any right to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from doing so. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and controverted the plaint averments. Occupation of plaintiffs over the houses was admitted. However, the disputed latrines and stores were pleaded to be unauthorized construction in public street by encroaching upon the same. Consequently, the same are liable to be demolished. There was no construction in front of the house purchased by defendant no. 1. Doors and windows of the said house were opening towards east in the common street. There is public street between houses of the plaintiffs on the one hand and house of defendant no. 1 on the other. The said street is meant for use by all residents of the locality including defendant no. 1. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) Both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed.;