AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the appellants at length.
It is argued by counsel for the appellants that the
appellate court has erred in reversing the finding of the lower
court. The lower court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff
and has restrained the respondents from opening the windows in
the lane adjoining to the temple. It is contended by counsel for
the appellants that the appellate court has erred in interpreting
Exhibits 1, 2, 3 & 4 and holding that the documents pertained only
to the property purchased by the respondents from Ramsukh. It is
also contended that the permission was sought for the entire
property and the municipality rejected the prayer for the entire
property.
Counsel for the respondents has stated that no
substantial question of law is involved in this case. The
respondents purchased the property from Khemraj in 1952 and
from Ramsukh in 1970, and the order of the municipality pertains
to the property, which the respondents have purchased from
Ramsukh, as is evident from Ex.4.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
The appellate court has rightly dealt with the document
Ex.4, as Ex.4 clearly mentions about the property, which was
purchased by the respondents from Ramsukh in 1970, as
reference therein is made to Ex.5, which was executed by
Ramsukh. Thus, the rejection by the municipality pertained only to
the property, which was purchased by the respondents from
Ramsukh.
The counsel for the appellants has only pointed towards
the finding of facts and is not in a position to make out any
substantial question of law.
The Apex Court, in Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan
Bi, (2016) 10 SCC 315, has held that roving enquiry about
factual aspects of appeal is impermissible.
In view of the above as no substantial question of law
is made out in this case, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The present appeal is therefore, dismissed. The stay
application also stands disposed.