,_
KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ORS.
v.
JAi KUMAR JAIN AND ANR.
JANUARY 2, 1996
K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Unauthorised Construction--Demolition of-Only the offending wall
and not the entire building--Directions issued.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.95 of the Patna High Court in
Second Appeal No. 292 of 1991.
Ajit Kr. Sinha, Pradeep Ranjan, S.S. Mishra and Santosh Kumar for the
Appellants.
S.C. Gupta, Jatinder K. Bhatia Sunil K. Jain, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel for the parties. This Court issued notice con-
fining to the question as indicated in our order dated August 21, 1995 which
reads thus:
"It is contended for the petitioners that interpreting the operative part
of the decree of the trial court, namely,
"It is, accordingly declared that the defendants ha_ve absolutely no
right to close the windows and ventilators in the northern wall of the
plaintiffs house and he interfere with the same in any way causing
diminution in the light and air to which the plaintiffs are entitled to
and have been enjoying as of contractual right consequently they are
directed to remove the walls or any other restructure made adjacent
to the northern wall of the plaintiffs house within two months failing
which the plaintiffs shall have right to get the same removed in due
process of law in the interest of finally of the dispute it is hereby
made cle":r that the defendants shall be at liberty to raise their wall
23
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] I S.C.R.
after leaving a set back of 3 feet from the northern w_all of plaintiffs so
as to enable to later to enjoy the light and air in terms of the sale deed
of the year 1921."
even the construction made in the year 1947-48 upto the first floor is
also sought to be removed by wrong interpretation sought to be put
upon the decree. It is contended that in fact the defendants construc-
tion was latter in point of time though the petitioners had not ob-
jected. Therefore, the respondents now cannot object and claim demo-
lition of the even existing structure except the one which is constructed
in the year 1982-83. Issue notice on this limited question."
The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a photo-
graph in which it is seen that there exists a double-storeyed building and be-
sides that the offending wall was constructed. The said wall is now found to
have been constructed recently as found by the trial Court and affirmed by the
appellate, as well as the High Court. In view of the above finding, the appre-
hension of the appellants that existing double'storeyed building would be de-
molished in execution of decree of the trial Court is unfounded. What is to be
demolished is the construction unauthorisedly made by the appellants as found
by the _Commissioner who was examined as PW-8 whose report is Ex. I and
the field Book II A.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No
costs.
G.N.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex