Disposed

John Vaz and Anr., v. Mr. Jose De Afonso Machado (Sin. Dec.) through Lr'S. and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2014CA/199/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal arising from a regular civil judgment, the High Court stayed the mandatory injunction for demolition of illegal construction until final disposal. TheCourt accepted the appellants' undertaking to install PVC pipes for water flow from eavesdrops and disposed of the interim application.

What did the court decide?

Stay of mandatory injunction for demolition pending final disposal; Undertaking by appellants to install PVC pipes accepted.

John Vaz and Anr., Vs Mr. Jose De Afonso Machado (Sin… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 199 OF 2013

¶3

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2013

¶5

JOHN VAZ AND ANR., Versus

¶6

MR. JOSE DE AFONSO MACHADO (SIN. DEC.) THROUGH LR'S. AND ANR.,

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sandesh D. Padiyar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶9

Coram:U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶10

Date:13th February, 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Herad Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶13

The applicants are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.125/1998/B/C and respondents are the plaintiffs.

¶14

By impugned judgment, order and decree dated 05/06/2013 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.112/2009, the following order has been made:

¶15

"Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment is quashed and set aside. The defendants are directed to demolish the illegal construction carried out by them in the suit lane, restoring the lane to its arlier width so as to allow the monsoons water to flow as they always used to flow earlier. The defendants are restrained by way of a permanent injunction from constructing

¶16

¶17

anything in the suit lane. The defendants are restrained by way of permanent injunction from allowing the eavesdrops from the defendants' house and the defendants' structures to fall on the plaintiffs' house and even to fall within a distance of 50 cms. from the entire wall of the house of the plaintiffs. So also, the defendants are restrained by way of a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' in cleaning up of the drain goes through the said lane and from interfering with the plaintiffs' removal of anything blocking or which may block the free flow of monsoon water."

¶18

Insofar as the order of mandatory injunction of demolition of illegal construction allegedly carried out by the applicants in the suit lane and restoration of the same to the earlier width is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that they would not object if this part of the final order is stayed until the disposal of the Second Appeal.

¶19

Insofar as the order restraining the applicants from allowing the eavesdrops from the house of the applicants and structures of the applicants to fall on the house of the respondents and even within a distance of 50 cms from the wall of the house of the respondents, the applicants undertake to put half cut PVC pipe (gutter) of the width of 6 inches for smooth flow of the water from the eavesdrop of the house of the applicants. The applicants undertake to carry out this exercise within a period of two months from today.

¶20

Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the applicants, upon instructions, from applicant no.1 submits that there is likelihood of

¶21

¶22

further difficulty, since water from eavesdrops of the house of the respondents, which is at higher lever, splashes below and then in that event, the water may splash on the house of the respondents. According to the learned Counsel, this can be avoided if the respondents also put similar PVC pipe (drain) to the wall of their house. Mr. Costa Frias submits that the respondents will consider this aspect.

¶23

In view of the above, the part of the impugned judgment and order pertaining to mandatory injunction of demolition of the construction in the suit lane and restoration of the lane to its earlier width, is stayed until the final disposal of the Second Appeal, whereas with regard to the eavesdrops, the observations made above shall be followed.

¶24

With the above observation, Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶25

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶26

SMA

John Vaz and Anr., v. Mr. Jose De Afonso Machado (Sin. Dec.) through Lr'S. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Vaz and Anr., v. Mr. Jose De Afonso Machado (Sin. Dec.) through Lr'S. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maria Cassia T. Paiva Vs Mr. Haroon Ebrahim AND12 Ors.

Mr. Joao Alias John Fernandes (Since Dec.) through His Lr'S. and Anr. Vs Mrs. Bernadina Fernandes and 6 Ors.

Tukaram Kshemchandra Redkar Vs Sanjay Shanker Mandrekar

Mr. Francisco Jose Godinho Vs Mr. Tommie Dean Hardin

Mr. Manuel Sequeira Vs Mr. Joseph Venancio Francisco Sequeira and 2 Ors.

Mr. Peter Camilo Rodrigues Rep. by Their Duly Attorney Mr. Joseph Peter Rodrigues and 3 Ors., Vs Miss. Genevra Rodrigues and 5 Ors.