' This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted by the petitioner on 12-9-1981 against the respondent in the civil Court at Lahore, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from using a latrine situated on the 2nd floor in Property No. S-36-R-128 situated at Railway Road, Lahore asking also for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove a waste pipe which the respondent had laid at the wall of the petitioner located on the northern side of the house and the construction which the respondent had carried out negligently be ordered to be restrained in future.
2. The petitioner in her suit claimed that she was the owner in Property No. S-36-R-128 of the first floor consisting of two rooms, kitchen and a latrine on the second floor near the stair case. The ownership as to the latrine on the second floor was being disputed by the respondent. The respondent laid waste pipe on the northern side of the house of the petitioner on her (respondent) portion of the property which created unhygienic condition and due to that the roof of the petitioner's kitchen was damaged. The respondent denied the averments in the plaint and the cause of action and maintained that she was an owner in possession of the latrine in dispute since the same was sold to her. Regarding the waste pipe it was said that the same was laid with the mutual consent of the parties. The petitioner came to own the property on the ground floor and the first floor of property No. S. 36-R-128 through a purchase from her father namely, Abdul Bari who was holding the prperty as an owner under a permanent transfer deed from the Settlement Department vide a registered sale deed dated 30-10-1978. On the other hand the respondent had come to own the property on the second floor through a purchase from the father of the petitioner vide a registered sale deed dated 6-8-1970.
3. After observing that both the parties had admitted that the disputed latrine was on the second floor the learned trial Court gave its finding that the petitioner was owner of only the ground floor and the first floor of the house and not of any part of the second floor. The respondent who was the owner of the second floor was in fact the owner of the disputed latrine. As to the other aspect of the suit the learned trial Court said that the contention of the petitioner that the laying of the pipe had given rise to unhygienic condition was not supported by any evidence. As to the alleged unlawful construction that was admitted that the same was raised by the respondent upon her own portion and there was nothing on the record to support that the construction was in any way unlawful. The learned trial Court believed the evidence adduced by the respondent in taking that the laying of waste pipe was with the consent of the parties which had not been refuted. The petitioner had also failed to prove that the construction raised by the respondent damaged a portion of the petitioner's house. In the opinion of the trial Court the respondent had successfully proved that no new construction was raised and only a repair was carried out. As a result of its findings the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 18-6-1984.
4. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of her suit the petitioner filed an appeal which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the finding of the learned trial Court by holding that the disputed latrine was on the second floor and the same was transferred to the respondent through sale alongwith the other portion. As to the other aspect he opined that so far as the construction raised by the respondent was concerned the same was admittedly on her own portion. No law debarred the respondent from making the improvements in her property by raising additional construction. If at all any damage had been caused to the petitioner she could claim damages but not demand the removal of the construction. He dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 13-5-1986.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court while deciding the issue did not take a note of the fact as mentioned in the deed on page No.4 that the latrine on the second floor was also transferred by sale to the petitioner so the fact that way sufficiently established that the petitioner owned apart from the latrine on the first floor also the latrine on the second floor.
' The point was also raised before the learned Additional District Judge who while dealing with it observed that there was no denial of the fact that there was only one latrine on the second floor and according to the copy of the sale deed Exh. D.W. 2 in favour of the respondent, the respondent purchased the property on the second floor consisting of a Barsati, a compound and a latrine alongwith other rights in the year 1970. According to the learned Judge if in the year 1970 the second floor including a latrine had been sold away by Abdul Bari to the respondent then how in the year 1978 the latrine in the second floor could be transferred to the petitioner. The mention of a latrine on the second floor on the fourth page of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner was meaningless. The disputed latrine had been included in the sale-deed Exh. P.A. Of 1978 in a doubtful manner. The real and complete description of the first floor had been given on the second page, according to which one latrine on the first floor was transferred but curiously enough on the fourth page of the deed the latrine of the second floor was also mentioned in spite of the fact that the same had already stood transferred to the respondent in the year 1970. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge in this behalf is consistent with the evidence as adduced, so no exception can be taken to it, as such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is being regarded as without any force. No other point has been raised, therefore, this civil revision is dismissed in limine being without any substance.