Shanti Deceased and Anr. Vs Dharma

Parties to the lis were co-sharers in a land measuring 1 Kanal comprised in khasra number 207, khewat No.210/284, khatoni No.245 as per jamabandi for the year 2010-11, situated in the revenue estate of village Dadhi Bana, Teshil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. Concededly, both have raised construction over their respective shares. They are at loggerheads qua passage marked with letters DEFH in the

¶20

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-681-2022 (O&M) & RSA-869-2022 (O&M)

¶22

site plan appended to the plaint. The fact of both the parties being in possession of their respective shares, also stands corroborated by site plan produced and proved by plaintiff Ex.P8 and that by defendants Ex. D1. The portion in possession of appellant-defendants shown by letters AEFG abuts the main road. Ingress and egress to the portion in possession of the plaintiff, is through passage marked as DEFH. The defendants have their ventilators opening in the passage DEFH.

¶23

The Court of the First instance though returned the finding that plaintiffs have no other passage to their house and thus defendants need to be restrained from interfering in the same. But at the same time, restrained plaintiffs from installing gate at the point where the passage meets the main road at point DE. Both the parties preferred cross appeals. Lower Appellate Court while holding that the Court of the First Instance ought not have granted permanent injunction in favor of defendants without there being any separate suit or counter claim, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs decreeing their suit and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants.

¶24

Pure finding of facts have been recorded by the Courts below. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. It is a conceded position, as is evident from Ex.P8 and Ex.D1 the site plans brought on record by both the parties that the area of 01 kanal stands mutually partitioned between the parties to the lis . The judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022 passed by Lower Appellate Court is modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to use passage depicted as DEFH shown in red color in the site plan P8 without there being any

¶25

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-681-2022 (O&M) & RSA-869-2022 (O&M)

¶27

interference from the appellant-defendants and is entitled to install gate at point DE where the passage abuts the main road. However, it is made clear that appellant-defendants have a right to open ventilators/windows in their wall abutting the passage, but without creating any hindrance or obstruction in the passage in any manner, as the passage was left for the user of the parties to facilitate enjoyment of their separated shares.

¶28

The situation is akin to one contemplated under Section 30 of the Indian Eeasments Act, 1882. The dominant part of the property stands divided. The portion has been left which is necessary for parties to enjoy their respective portions. The same is in the form of annexed portion to share of each party and needs to be used in the manner necessary for enjoyment of his dominant share. Appellants can use for opening ventilators/windows but cannot obstruct passage of the respondents in any manner by opening door etc.

¶29

In view of both the appeals are disposed off accordingly. 7. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other

¶30

connected case.

¶31

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶32

06.08.2025 Dinesh

¶33

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No

¶34

DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shanti Deceased and Anr. v. Dharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Deceased and Anr. v. Dharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Narain Vs Employee State Insurance Commission and Others

Ramandeep Singh Vs Balwinder Singh and Ors.

Meena Prabhakar Vs Dr Kp Singh Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Chandigarh and Others

Surender Vs Inderjeet Singh and Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Vasdev Singh

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shinder Kaur and Ors.