Appeal allowed for plaintiffs, dismissed for defendant, emphasizing mandatory injunction in joint property disputes

The plaintiffs' appeal was allowed, setting aside the first appellate court's decree and restoring the trial court's decision. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment reaffirmed the necessity of a mandatory injunction in cases of joint property disputes where partition is not feasible, emphasizing the restoration of the original state of the property as the appropriate remedy.

---

---

Issues:
Dispute over joint property rights and construction on a shared passage leading to a house in Niwai, Rajasthan.

Analysis:
The judgment involves cross-appeals arising from a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction regarding a house in Niwai. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants encroached upon a joint passage by constructing pillars and stone slabs, causing obstruction to light and air. The trial court found the passage to be joint property and ordered demolition of the construction. The first appellate court concurred but reduced the compensation to the plaintiffs to Rs. 150, citing lack of substantial damage. The defendant contested the restriction on constructing on the first floor. The plaintiffs argued that the narrow passage left no room for essential activities and sought restoration of the trial court's decree. Reference to legal precedents highlighted the necessity of a mandatory injunction for joint property disputes where partition is not feasible.

The defendant's contention that the construction was not a complete wall but only pillars was countered by the plaintiffs, emphasizing the significant obstruction caused. Legal principles from various cases supported the plaintiffs' claim for restoration of the original condition of the joint property. The judgment reiterated that in cases of joint property incapable of partition, a mandatory injunction for demolition is the appropriate remedy to restore the property to its original state. The court found the first appellate court's modification of the trial court's decree unjustified, as the obstruction on the joint passage significantly infringed on the plaintiffs' rights, necessitating demolition.

In conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal was allowed, setting aside the first appellate court's decree and restoring the trial court's decision. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment reaffirmed the necessity of a mandatory injunction in cases of joint property disputes where partition is not feasible, emphasizing the restoration of the original state of the property as the appropriate remedy.

---