- (1.) The wall between the houses of the plaintiff and the defendants is the bone of contention between them. The plaintiff Roshan Lal Mehta sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from making any construction in their house by placing rafters on the said wall. The defendants, on the other hand, took the plea that it was a common wall of the parties and they were, therefore, well within their right to make the construction and to use the common wall for this purpose.
(2.) It was the finding of the trial Court that the wall in question was the common wall of the parties and it was specifically found in this behalf that the roof of the house of the defendants was supported by this wall and the stair-case also rested upon it. The suit of the plaintiff was consequently dismissed.
(3.) On appeal, however, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the wall was the exclusive property of the plaintiff. It was further observed that even if the existing wall was held to be joint, it did not necessarily follow that any further construction upon it would also be joint.;