SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Ker) 46

G.BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR
Kurian – Appellant
Versus
Job – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Abraham, for Appellants, T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer, P. K. Balasubramaniam and O. O. Mathew, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT :-

Appellants were the two defendants in a suit for injunction brought by the original plaintiff-respondent, now represented by his legal representatives additional respondents 2 to 4. They are tenants of a non-residential building by the side of the road on the east and a room further west and the intervening space in between. The building and room were taken on rent for running their trade. The building is marked 1, the room 2 and the vacant space 3 in the sketch Ext. C-2 prepared by a Commissioner. The vacant space is the B Schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff sought a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any building in or altering the nature of the B schedule property and a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the structures put up by them without his knowledge or consent. The main ground of the defence was that they were putting up a shed in the B Schedule with the consent of the plaintiff, that they would remove it at the time of surrendering the lease and that in such circumstances the structure was not liable to be demolished. The trial Court found that the structure was put up by the defendants with the consent of the plai














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top