The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-original plaintiff, wherein following substantial questions of law have been framed :-
"(1) Whether the right of air and light acquired by the plaintiff either by express or implied grant or constructive grant can be curtailed and/or extinguished by the defendants-respondents?
(2) Whether by complete closure of the door and ventilators and the apertures by the defendants, there will be substantial diminition of air and light?
(3) Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the kitchen of the property of the plaintiff will receive sufficient air and light from 2' hole in the wall constructed by the respondents. and whether the said hole will remain open in future for all times to come and whether it can be considered to be sufficient?
(4) The Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the registered deed of reconveyance, dated 11-8-1941 at Ex.49.
(5) Whether the case of the plaintiff is governed by section 33 or section 60 of the Easement."
Learned counsel, Mr.Uday Vyas appearing for learned counsel, Mr.B.J. Shelat states that he has no instruction and inspite of efforts, he has not received any instruction.
In the circumstances, the present Second Appeal stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
Liberty to revive in case of difficulty.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) /patil Top