Ranawat - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal.
(2.) GAJADHAR filed a suit against Johrilal in the court of Munsif, Hindaun. with the allegation that the defendant had constructed a wall by the side of the wall of his shop on its southward side without leaving a lane, contrary to the provision of the then Jaipur State Rules. He claimed that the structure put by the defendant should be ordered to be demolished and the defendant be directed to leave a lane in between his structure and the shop of the plaintiff. The case of the defendant was that the wall which was alleged by the plaintiff to be the wall of his shop was a party wall belonging to both the parties to the suit and that the plaintiff had no cause of action for demolition of his structures. The trial court after holding an enquiry found in favour of the plaintiff that the wall on the southward side of the plaintiff's shop belonged exclusively to the plaintiff and that it was not a party wall. The suit of the plaintiff however was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to force the defendant to leave a lane by the side of his shop. On the strength of the decision in Rupnarain vs. Kishanlal (13 Jaipur Law Reports 141) it was held that the old Hidayats relating to lanes which formed the basis of the plaintiff's suit had no application to the cases of shops either in the city of Jaipur or in the mufassil. The plaintiff went in appeal to the court of the Civil Judge, Gangapur, but his appeal failed and was dismissed with costs. He has now come in second appeal to this court and the only point which has been raised here is that the old Jaipur State Hidayats should have been respected by the lower courts and that the defendant should be restrained from putting any constructions by the side of the plaintiff's shop unless a lane in between them was left by him. Leaving alone the question whether the old Hidayats of the then Jaipur State regarding leaving of lanes are still good law, this case can be decided on the strength of the decision referred to above in Rupnarain vs. Kishanlal's case. According to that decision the Hidayats, if any, relate to residential houses and they do not apply to the cases of shops in Bazars, whether in the city of Jaipur or in the mufassil. Admittedly, the plaintiff's premises are not residential. In the plaint those premises have been described as a shop. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to invoke the applicability of the old Hidayats in his favour. Both the courts below; were therefore not wrong in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief which he claimed in the matter of forcing the other side to leave a lane by the side of his shop. The suit has been rightly dismissed. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The decree of the court below is confirmed.;