http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAI KUMAR JAIN & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1586            1996 SCC  (2)  23  JT 1996 (1)    77        1996 SCALE  (1)153

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have  heard the  counsel for the parties. This Court issued notice  confining 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 degree of the trial court, namely,      "It is,  accordingly declared  that  the      defendants have  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  tow  months  failing  which  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      clear that  the defendants  shall be  at      liberty  to   raise  their   wall  after      leaving a  set back  of 3  feet from the      northern wall  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    sought   to    be   removed   by   wrong      interpretation sought to be put upon the      degree. It is contended that in fact the      defendants construction  was  latter  in      point of time though the petitioners had      not objected. Therefore, the respondents      now cannot  object and  claim demolition      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 photograph in which it is seen that there exists a double-storeyed  building and  besides 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 apprehension  of the  appellants that existing  double-storeyed building  would be demolished in execution of degree 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.1 and  the field Book 1/A.      The appeal  is accordingly  disposed of  with the above directions. No costs.