- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant-defendant.
(2.) THE defendant-appellant has filed the present second appeal aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decree/s of the learned courts below, whereby the defendant-appellant has been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff- respondent and, so also, has also been restrained from raising construction on by lane left on the southern side of the residential house, constructed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. Bharat Devasi, argued that only plot of land was sold by the defendant, namely, Netrakaur @ Jito to the plaintiff-respondent and not the residential house. Therefore, on the southern side, the door and window opened by the plaintiff were not proper and there was no street or by-lane on the southern side of the house. He, therefore, submitted that the both the courts below have wrongly granted injunction against the defendant-appellant. He also submitted that point-wise determination has been not made by the learned appellate court below and, therefore, relying upon decision of this Court in the case of Babulal Vs. Ladu Ram & Ors. reported in 1997 RLW (2) 774, urged that substantial question of law arises in the present secon dappeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant- defendant, and upon careful perusal of case law cited at the bar; and after going through the impugned judgments and decree/s passed by the courts below, particularly, para 10 of the appellate court's judgment, wherein it has been held that the defendant-herself has sold the suit property to the plaintiff-Mohini Devi for a sum of Rs.25- 30 thousand on which there was pre-existing door and window on the southern side, which she (defendant) herself constructed and, therefore, she could not object to the same. Therefore, raising of any construction by her (defendant) on such the southern side of the by- lane, was not permissible. The plaintiff has also undertaken proceedings for removal of nuisance under Section 133 of the Municipalities Act against the defendant-appellant. In view of these reasonings given by the learned courts below, the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction, which has been granted by the courts below against the appellant-defendant. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises and, therefore, the present second appeal of the defendant is found to be bereft of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent-plaintiff and the courts below forthwith. ;