The courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to put a sluice on the side of his roof/sunshade. This is to prevent the water falling on the roof top of the defendant and collected in his sunshade from being spilled over. The courts below have found on evidence that the water so spilled fall on the house of the plaintiff damaging it substantially. The direction to erect a sluice on the side of the roof/sunshade of the defendant calls for no interference in this Regular Second Appeal.
2. The trial court has noticed that the plaintiff constructed his house in the year 2005 and started occupation in the year 2006. This is evident from the admission of the defendant in the oral evidence itself. The counter claim for a mandatory injunction to demolish the house of the plaintiff was filed five years after the construction of the house. The trial court has rightly found that the claim of the defendant to have 2 RSA No. 1091/2014 the portion of the house of the plaintiff demolished is hit by acquiescence.
There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE