Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Suraj Parkash Ghai. v. Suresh Kumar & Anr. - RSA-3640-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 2629 (26 April 2006)

Regular Second Appeal No.3640 of 2002.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:28.3.2006.

Suraj Parkash Ghai.



Suresh Kumar and another.



Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal.


Present: Mr.Dinesh Goyal Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.J.R.Singla Advocate for the respondents.



S.N.Aggarwal, J.

The appellant and Shakuntla Devi, proforma respondent filed a civil suit against the respondent seeking to restrain him from opening any door, window or ventilator in the wall marked ABCD shown in the site plan attached with the plaint and from encroaching upon common compound and common passage shown as red in the site plan.

The case was resisted by the respondent.

The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the property of the respondent ended with the wall ABCD and he had no right to open door, window or ventilator in the said wall because these will open in the Regular Second Appeal No.3640 of 2002.

common compound owned by the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed.

Suresh Kumar respondent filed an appeal against the said judgment dated 30.11.1998. The learned Lower Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and merely restrained the defendant from encroaching upon common compound and common passage as shown with red colour in the site plan Exhibit P-1. The findings of trial Court were up-held to that extent. However, the learned lower Appellate Court permitted the defendant to open door,window or new ventilator in the wall ABCD on the plea that the said wall was owned by the defendant.

It is admitted even by the witnesses of the appellant that there were ventilators in the wall ABCD but none of the witnesses has deposed that there was any window or door in the said wall. It is also held by both the Courts below that the respondent/defendant does not own any land beyond ABCD nor it adjoins any street or public place. It was further held that it adjoins the land of the appellant.

Since the respondent does not have any right on the land beyond the wall ABCD towards the side of the appellant, therefore, he has no right to open window or door in the said wall. He has also no right to open a new ventilator in the said wall. If the respondent is permitted to open a window or door towards the side of the appellant, it will create a situation where the parties will go on quarrelling with each other and it will create a law and order problem. Otherwise also, the respondent has no legal right to open door,window or ventilator which may open in the land owned by the appellant. The respondent is restrained from opening any door or window or ventilator in the wall ABCD although the said wall is exclusively owned by him as held by the Courts below. However, if any ventilators are existing at Regular Second Appeal No.3640 of 2002.

the spot, these will not be closed and will remain there as such.

The appeal is accordingly allowed as stated above.

March 28,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.