AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The suit was for the injunctory relief of restraining the defendant from putting up certain construction over the defendant''s property. The complaint of the plaintiff was that the construction that was being made by the defendant would cause injury and damage to the plaintiffs property. This was one of the specific issues framed by the trial court, on the basis of the pleadings, as to whether the construction on the property has caused injury to the plaintiffs property. Insofar as the ownership of the property is concerned, there is no dispute and as far as the encroachment of the property is also not in issue between the parties. The only apprehension of the plaintiff was that the manner and nature of construction that was being put up by the defendant was likely to cause damage to the property of the plaintiff apart from affecting their easementary rights. The trial court having addressed the particular issue as to whether the construction would cause injury to the plaintiffs property, has arrived at a finding that the construction complained of was of the year 1984 whereas the judgment was rendered in the year 2002, by which lime, there was no injury caused to the plaintiff which was brought on record. The court below has further held that insofar as the claim with regard to prevention of easement to light and air by virtue of such construction, the same was not sought as a declaratory relief, but was being pleaded to claim injunctory reliefs and accordingly, the court has negated the claim of easementary rights having been affected and has arrived at a finding that the construction being put up causes no injury to the plaintiff. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the appellant would assert that though the defendants had produced a sanctioned plan, according to which, the construction is said to have been put-up, the same was in violation of the building bye-laws, which prescribes set back areas which have been violated by the defendants. Insofar as violation of a sanctioned plan and violation of the building bye-laws are concerned, the plaintiff being afforded alternative remedies under the appropriate law the plaintiff ought to have pursued the same. As rightly held by the court below, there being no declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiff, any declaration as to the construction being in violation of the building bye laws and that the same affect easementary rights of the plaintiff may not be capable of being considered. Therefore, the court below has rightly addressed the pleadings and the evidence before the court in rejecting the plaint. There is no ground made out for interference.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.