JUDGMENT Heard Shri Trilok Bahadur Sahagal, the counsel representing the appellants and Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali, the counsel representing the respondent. 2. This Appeal, as against O.S. NO.322 of 1985, on the file of the 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, was originally filed and numbered as A.S.No. 221 of 1993, on the file of 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but in view of the fact that a common judgment was delivered in both O.S. No.745 of 1982 and O.S. No.322 of 1985and in view of the fact that as against the judgment and decree made in O.S. NO.745 of 1982, an Appeal- CCCA NO.60 of 1994 - was preferred to this Court, the aforesaid Appeal was transferred to be heard along with this Appeal. It is stated that the withdrawal of A.S. No. 221 of 1993 is by virtue of an order dt. 11-10-1995 passed in Transfer CMP No. 226 of 1994. CCCA MP No. 527 of 2005 was filed by Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali praying for dismissal of CCCA No. 60 of 1994 as having abated and the same was dismissed as having been abated, but, inasmuch as Transfer CCCA No. 139 of 1996 is concerned, it is still pending for hearing. 3. Shri Trilok Bahadur Sehagal, the learned counsel representing the appellants, had taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties in both the suits aforesaid, the reliefs prayed for, and would maintain that despite the attainment of finality in relation to the findings recorded in O.S. No. 745 of 1982, inasmuch as CCCA No. 60 of 1994 was dismissed as abated, the right to have the door way, the windows and ventilators to the house in question being unconcerned with the reliefs prayed for in the other suit, the said abatement would not come in his way and, hence, the matter may have to be heard on merits. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 and no doubt in relation to the said property, yet another suit O.S. No. 745 of 1982 was filed praying for the relief of declaration of title, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and future mesne profits and though the parties have substantiated the same and the said matter was dismissed the findings recorded in relation to the said property, the subject-matter of the said suit may not come in the way of recording independent findings in the present Appeal. The learned counsel also pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled in both the suits and would maintain that the rights of the appellants to have the door way, windows, ventilators etc., may have to be protected in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Shri Shaik Mahmood Ali, the learned counsel representing the respondent would maintain that O.S. No. 322 of 1985filed by the respondent herein was decreed with costs directing the plaintiffs in O.S. NO.7 45 of 1982 to close down the doors and two ventilators opening into the suit site within three months, failing which the plaintiff in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 is at liberty to get the same closed through process of Court and further permanent injunction also was granted restraining the defendants in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The learned counsel would explain that common evidence was recorded and that common findings also had been recorded. The counsel also would point out that the appellants never came with any positive case, as such, claiming the easementary right nor that they had ever instituted any suit claiming such relief. The learned counsel would explain that common evidence was recorded and that common findings also had been recorded. The counsel also would point out that the appellants never came with any positive case, as such, claiming the easementary right nor that they had ever instituted any suit claiming such relief. In the suit filed by the respondent some plea was taken, inasmuch as common evidence was recorded and certain of the findings in relation to the site already had attained finality by virtue of the dismissal of CCCA No.60 of 1994, the appellants cannot maintain this appeal and, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed, While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel also pointed out to certain other factual details and would submit that when the very foundation of the case of the other side, claiming right over the site in question, is totally lost, it is needless to say that these reliefs put forth by way of defence cannot be considered in the present Appeal. 5. Heard both the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 6. In the light of the evidence recorded by the learned Judge, both in O.S. Nos. 745 of 1982 and 322 of 1985, on the file of the 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, it is needless to say that the parties in both the litigations appear to be common. O.S. NO.7 45 of 1982 was filed claiming the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, mesne profits and other ancillary reliefs. O.S. No. 322 of 1985 was originally instituted on the file of the 3rd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as O.S. No. 122 of 1982 and it appears the same was transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 322 of 1985 and with the consent of both the parties O.S. No. 322 of 1985 was clubbed with O.S. No. 745 of 1982 and common trial was taken up and evidence was recorded in the comprehensive suit O.S. No.7 45 of 1982. It appears that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 745 of 1982 had taken a stand that she is the owner of H.No. 20-7-147 and the site measuring 174 square yards appurtenant to the said house. Several other factual details in relation to the said litigation need not be dealt with at length. 7. It appears that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 745 of 1982 had taken a stand that she is the owner of H.No. 20-7-147 and the site measuring 174 square yards appurtenant to the said house. Several other factual details in relation to the said litigation need not be dealt with at length. 7. It may be appropriate to have a look at the issues which had been settled in the aforesaid suit: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit land. 2. Whether decision in O.S.No. 122/82 on the file of III Assistant Judge operates as res judicata against the plaintiff. 3. Whether the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from person who had no title and possession. 4. Whether the defendants are owners and in possession of the suit property. 5. Whether the purchase of suit land in court auction by the defendants can be questioned by the plaintiff. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 7. Whether the plaintiff has overvalued the suit land and this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. 8. Whether the plaintiff can claim the relief of injunction which has been decided finally in O.S. 122/82 by the III Assistant Judge, and confirmed in appeal. 9. Whether the title deeds of the plaintiffs are genuine and valid. 10. Whether the suit is maintainable. 11. Whether the defendants are entitled for compensatory costs. 12. To what relief. 8. O.S. No. 322 of 1985 was filed by the respondent herein-plaintiff taking the same stand taken in the Written Statement in O.S. NO.745 of 1982 and it was pleaded that the appellants herein-defendants had opened doors and ventilators facing to appurtenant land of the plaintiff and they had not closed down in spite of repeated requests made by them and in such circumstances the appropriate reliefs for closing down the doors, ventilators etc., had been prayed for. The same was resisted virtually on the self-same grounds and the following issues were settled in the said suit. 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit site by the date of suit. 2. Whether the defendants unauthorizedly opened doorway and two ventilators to the house towards the suit site. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory and prohibitory injunction as prayed for. 4. To what relief. 9. The common evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws. 1 to 4 had been recorded. 2. Whether the defendants unauthorizedly opened doorway and two ventilators to the house towards the suit site. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory and prohibitory injunction as prayed for. 4. To what relief. 9. The common evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and D.Ws. 1 to 4 had been recorded. Exs.A-1 to A-24, Exs,B-1 to B-59 and Exs.C-1 and C-2 were marked. As already referred to supra, O.S. No. 745 of 1982 was dismissed and the appeal CCCA No. 60 of 1994, preferred as against the same, also was dismissed no doubt on the ground that the same stood abated. The decree in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 is being questioned in the present Appeal. 10. In the light of the submissions made by both the counsel the following points arise for consideration in this appeal. 1. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Judge while answering issues 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 to be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the common findings recorded in both the suits on the strength of common evidence can be disturbed in the light of the dismissal of CCCA No. 60 of 1994 as having been abated in the facts and circumstances of the case; and 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to. 11. Points 1 and 2: The parties hereinafter for the purpose of convenience would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants in O.S. No. 322 of 1985. The plaintiff filed the said suit originally as O.S. No. 122 of 1982 on the file of the 3d Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was re-numbered as O.S. No. 322 of 1985 and, as already referred to supra, with the consent of both the parties common evidence was recorded in O.S. No. 745 of 1982 the comprehensive suit. It is needless to say that the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 745 of 1982 had attained finality in view of the dismissal of CCCA No. 60 of 1994 as having abated. 12. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the open land admeasuring 244 square yards equivalent to 188.16 square metres, bounded on the North 49 6" Road, on the South house bearing No. 20-7-147 of the first defendant, on the South (sic. 12. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the open land admeasuring 244 square yards equivalent to 188.16 square metres, bounded on the North 49 6" Road, on the South house bearing No. 20-7-147 of the first defendant, on the South (sic. East) 48 0" Seri and neighbours house No. 20-7-159 and on the West house bearing No. 20-7-158/1, belonging to Vicar Ahmed. The second defendant Syed Mohiuddin is the husband of the first defendant, the fourth defendant is the son of the first and second defendants and the third defendant is the sisters son of the plaintiff, that all the defendants have opened door, windows and ventilators facing to the appurtenant land of the plaintiff and they had not closed down the same in spite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff obtained sanctioned plan from the Municipal Corporation for the construction of the building over the site and the defendants had been obstructing the same illegally. It may not be out of context if it is mentioned that the other averments made in the plaint are substantially the same averments made in the Written Statement filed by the present plaintiff in the other suit - O.S.No. 745 of 1982. The issues, no doubt, in both the suits have already been referred to supra. The defendants filed the Written Statement denying the allegations. Specific stand was taken that the property was never owned by the plaintiff or his predecessors in interest and it was asserted that the first defendant is the owner of the house bearing No. 20-7-147 of the appurtenant site. The exact extent is 174 square yards and it is part and parcel of house No. 20-7-159 which belonged to Ahmed Bin Mohammed Yamini originally. The other averments made are substantially the same which were made in the plaint in O.S. No.7 45 of 1982. Hence, it is needless to say that the parties even in their respective pleadings had taken that same stand in both the suits and may be that was the reason why the suit filed as O.S. No. 122 of 1982 was transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 322 of 1985 to be tried along with the comprehensive suit O.S. No.7 45 of 1982. The oral evidence of P.Ws. The oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and D.Ws.1 to 4 and the documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-24. Exs.B-1 to B-59 and Exs.C-1 and C-2 had been discussed at length. At Para-14 issues 2 and 8 in O.S. No. 745 of 1982 and at Para 15 issues 6,7 and 10 in O.S.No. 745 of 1982 were answered. Likewise issues 1, 3, 9, 4, 5 and 11 were answered commencing from Para-16 and the oral and documentary evidence at length had been discussed and findings had been recorded. As can be seen from the findings which had been recorded at Para-29 issue No. 12 in O.S. No. 745 of 1982 and issue No.4 is O.S. No. 322 of 1985 had been answered in the light of the common discussion and the common findings recorded from Paras 16 to 27. Consequently, the learned Judge answered issues 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 in favour of the plaintiffs therein and the defendants in the present suit. It is needless to say that the defendants in O.S. No. 322 of 1985 are the plaintiffs in the other suit O.S.No. 745 of 1982 which was dismissed. 13. Submissions at length were made by the counsel representing the defendants that the findings recorded in relation to these suits can be separate and the evidence, so far as it relates to O.S. No. 322 of 1985 can be appreciated separately and separate findings can be recorded. 14. On a careful reading of the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is satisfied that the substantial stand taken by the respective parties in both the suits being common, on appreciation of common evidence specific findings had been recorded and the stand taken by the defendants had been specifically negatived upholding the stand taken by the plaintiff. That is the situation where the parties are placed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the defendants though filed yet another suit they had not prayed for any positive relief of easementory right or otherwise. It appears that by way of submissions some defence had been put forth and that too the averments made in the pleadings are as vegue as they can be. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the defendants though filed yet another suit they had not prayed for any positive relief of easementory right or otherwise. It appears that by way of submissions some defence had been put forth and that too the averments made in the pleadings are as vegue as they can be. In view of the findings which had been recorded on the substantial respective stands of the parties, the learned Judge came to a positive conclusion that the defendants cannot be permitted to continue the doors and ventilators opening into the site in question and directed the closure of the same within three months, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same closed through process of Court. Further, permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with the plaint schedule property. Hence, this aspect of closure of the doors and two ventilators being connected with the plaint schedule property, these aspects cannot be dealt with separately or in isolation, especially in the back-drop of the appreciation of common evidence and the recording of common findings, which had been referred to supra, in both the suits. Hence, viewed from any angle, the defendants are bound to fail, more so, in the light of the abatement which had been recorded in CCCA No. 60 of 1994. Hence, the findings are hereby confirmed. 15. Point No.3: In the light of the finding recorded above, the Appeal fails and, accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. In view of the fact that the other Appeal was dismissed as having been abated, the parties to bear their own costs.