Back
S.AYYANGAR
S. S. V. Krishnan Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Kilasathammal – Respondent
What is the court's ruling on the mandatory injunction for removal of the shed over the common lane? What is the court's ruling on the mandatory injunction for removal of the pial? What factors did the court consider in exercising discretion to grant or refuse the injunction (balance of convenience, laches, interference with enjoyment, and damages)?
Key Points: - The court refused the mandatory injunction for removal of the shed over the common lane. (!) - The court upheld the mandatory injunction for removal of the pial. (!) - The decision weighed interference with enjoyment, defendant’s laches, potential damages, and considered awarding damages instead of injunction. (!) - The court noted the lane is common property used only as a passage and found no substantial interference in removing the terrace/shed. (!) - Laches by the plaintiff influenced the refusal of the injunction for the terrace/shed. (!) - The court capped damages at Rs. 100 in lieu of the injunction for the terrace/shed. (!) - Each party to bear its own costs on appeal due to mixed success. (!) - The court cited principles from English equity and Specific Relief Act regarding injunctions and discretion. (!) - The pial’s removal was upheld since damages to defendant were not shown to be substantial. (!) (!) - The court dissolved the injunction regarding the terrace/shed but maintained the injunction for the pial. (!) (!)
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.
1. The question for determination in this second appeal is whether the mandatory injunction granted, by the lower Courts against the defendant was properly granted. There is really no serious dispute about the facts. of the case. The dispute relates to a lane of about 5% feet in width. It is admitted that this lane is the common property of both the parties. It is also clear that on a previous occasion defendant threatened to deal with the lane in. a manner not consistent with its being the common property and thereupon an injunction was issued against him. The injunction, however, issued in that case does not cover the present case. The facts, so far as the present case is concerned, are, as found by the lower Courts, that 10 or 12 years ago the defendant who owned apparently both the properties on either side of this lane, put up a sort of a platform as a sort of a roof or covering for the lane and built a thatched shed thereon. About 1921 he altered the tiled shed into a terraced structure. There is also some question about a pial, that has been put up by the defendant on the common lane. The pial is not of a very large dimension. So far as the pial
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
