KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J -Plaintiffs/respondents who are trans--ferees of certain portions of a double-storey building, described more fully in their plaint, as a result of verticle division ordered and made by the settlement department, filed a suit to restrain the defendants/peti--tioners from putting any obstruction in the erection of a wall at the dividing line of the respective portions. They also claimed a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to make their own arrangements to rest the end of the bottom of the roof of the gallery on their side and also their separate sewerage.
This suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 17-6-1974.
2. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was accepted by the learned Dis--trict Judge on 31-1-1979, who reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge and decreed the suit.
3. The defendants/petitioners filed a Regular Second Appeal No. 204/79 but without any success as it was dismissed by the High Court on 21-10-1979.
4. The defendants/petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. Lengthy arguments were addressed before us to show that the Settlement authorities had not transferred the property to the partied herein in the form of a vertical division in certain relevant respects, with the result that the plaintiffs had no right to construct or ask for construction of a partition wall or make or ask for other consequential changes described in detail in their plaint. The contention has no force and the point has been thrashed out fully by the High Court, with reference to the relevant orders and other record and it has been found as a fact that the property was transferred to the parties on the basis of a vertical division. We have been taken through the aforesaid material but we must say that we have not been able to notice any misreading or omission of evidence in this factual matter, and as such no case according to us has been made out warranting interference by this Court in this respect.
6. It was then argued that in case a partition wall was constructed as directed by the two Courts below it was likely to effect certain easement rights of passage and doors, etc. Of the petitioners.
The contention has no force inasmuch as question of maturity of any easement rights of the defendants/petitioners against the plaintiffs/respondents hardly arises on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when both the parties are transferees from the Settlement Department, and had as such no rights against one 4 another. Another plea raised was that the plaintiffs in this case had not come to Court with clean hands in--asmuch as due -to their differences with the petitioners disputes had arisen so high that proceedings under sections 107/151, Cr. P. C., bad also taken place and as a retaliation against the same they instituted the present suit, and had not come to Court in a bona fide manner. The plea raised rather goes against the petitioners, because, if their disputes are of such a stirring nature which led to threat of breach of peace, then it is all the more justified that the partition wall, etc. Between their separate shares and portions should be erected. Lastly it was submitted that a Court cannot issue a direction to restrain a co-sharer from using a joint property. Reference for this proposition was made to Baru Mal v. Rala Ram and others (AIR 1938 Lah. 779). The case cited in our opinion has no relevancy to the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the present case, where the property has been transferred in the form of a vertical division which will obviously give rise to a right to get the said division materialised and implemented.
7. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.