- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking mandatory injunction against the defendants on the ground that in the south side of the plaintiff's house, there are plaintiff's doors, windows and ventilators and they are opening since last more than 40 years. The defendants/respondents raised construction on 2.3.1985 and closed the plaintiff's doors, windows and ventilators. By this, the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's right of air and light and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as the plaintiff has acquired easementary right.
(2.) The defendants submitted written statement and contested the suit. The issues were framed and the two courts below after considering the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff held that the plaintiff's three witnesses gave three different versions and the plaintiff failed to prove that there is any lane in existence towards the south of the plaintiff's house.
(3.) The appellant/plaintiff produced one patta, copy of which is placed on record in this second appeal as Annex.1. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear from the plaintiff's patta (Annex.1) that in the south of the plaintiff's house, there is a blind lane and according to learned counsel for the appellant, this is a public lane and its existence is given in the public document i.e. Patta. The first appellate court committed serious error in not relying upon this document.;