Case Note & Summary
The dispute in this second appeal arose between three brothers, Satyanarayan (appellant), Shankarrao, and Tryambak (respondents), over ancestral property bearing City Survey No.571 (old No.572) in Aheri, Gadchiroli. The parties had executed a consent deed (Sammati patra) on 22.12.1996 to resolve disputes regarding the user of a common way from the main road to a well. Under the deed, Satyanarayan was allowed to put up two slabs with columns to use the area over the slab, while the portion below the slab was to be kept vacant. Subsequently, Satyanarayan constructed an underground drainage, which the respondents alleged violated the consent deed and caused nuisance. The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1998, which was decreed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Sironcha on 30.1.2006. Satyanarayan appealed to the District Court, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2006, which was dismissed on 1.10.2007. The present second appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law: (i) whether the courts below erred in interpreting the consent deed, and (ii) whether the first appellate court erred in holding that an underground drainage is likely to cause nuisance. The High Court heard submissions from counsel for both sides. The court noted that the consent deed clearly permitted only the construction of slabs with columns and required the space below to remain vacant. The construction of an underground drainage was not authorized and was likely to cause nuisance to the respondents. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in second appeal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Interpretation of Consent Deed - Sammati Patra - The court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below that the consent deed dated 22.12.1996 did not permit the appellant to construct an underground drainage, as the deed only allowed construction of slabs with columns and required the portion below the slab to be kept vacant. Held that the appellant's construction of an underground drainage was contrary to the terms of the deed (Paras 1-4). B) Law of Nuisance - Underground Drainage - Likely Nuisance - The first appellate court's finding that an underground drainage is likely to cause nuisance was upheld, as the drainage would affect the common way and the rights of the respondents. Held that the construction of underground drainage without consent of co-sharers amounts to nuisance (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in interpreting the consent deed (Sammati patra) and in holding that an underground drainage is likely to cause nuisance.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the first appellate court dated 1.10.2007 in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2006 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of consent deed
- Nuisance from underground drainage
- Second appeal limited to substantial questions of law
