KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ORS.versusJAI KUMAR JAIN AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 5
- Decided
- 2 January 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The operative part of the decree is to be construed to require demolition only of the unauthorised wall that obstructs light and air, not the entire adjoining building.
Summary
The case arose from a decree of the trial court directing the defendants to remove a wall that obstructed the plaintiffs' light and air, with a requirement to maintain a three‑foot setback from the northern wall. The appellants argued that the decree, if given a literal meaning, required demolition of the entire double‑storeyed building adjoining the wall. The respondents contended that only the wall constructed in 1982‑83, which was unauthorised, should be removed. The trial court, the appellate court and the Commissioner’s report all found that the offending wall was a recent, unauthorised addition to an existing building. The Supreme Court was asked to interpret whether the decree mandated demolition of the whole structure or only the unauthorised wall. The Court held that the decree must be read in its operative part, limiting the demolition to the unauthorised construction that interferes with the right to light and air, and not to the pre‑existing building. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of without ordering demolition of the entire building. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- It is to be determined whether the operative part of the decree requires demolition of the entire double‑storeyed building or only the unauthorised wall that obstructs light and air.
- Whether the respondents can claim demolition of existing structures beyond the offending wall constructed in 1982‑83.
- How the decree’s provision of a three‑foot setback and the right to light and air should be interpreted in the context of unauthorised construction.
Subjects
Judgment
KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ORS. A
v.
JAi KUMAR JAIN AND ANR.
JANUARY 2, 1996
K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
Unauthorised Construction--Demolition of-Only the offending wall
,_ and not the entire building--Directions issued.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 1996.
c
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.
D
S.C. Gupta, Jatinder K. Bhatia Sunil K. Jain, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
E
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, F
"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 G
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 H
23
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] I S.C.R.
A 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
B 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."
c 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-
D 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 IIA.
E The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No
costs.
G.N. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.