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

1964 Supreme(All) 88

G.D.SAHGAL
GYANWATI NAITHANI – Appellant
Versus
UDAI RAJ AYODHYA PRASAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.N.Sethi

G. D. SAHGAL, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants are the tenants of respondent No. 1 of a certain accommodation in Bahraich. The roof of one of the rooms in that accommodation has given way. It was a tiled roof. The appellants want to replace it by a roof made of cement slabs. Objection had been taken against it by Tespondent No. 1. He filed a suit for an injunction restraining the appellants from making the construetions. The plea of the appellant was that they were only making repairs allowed to them under Section 108, T. P. Act. This plea of the appellants found favour with the learned Munsif but it did not find favour with the learned Civil fudge of Bahraich in appeal. The suit was accordingly decreed for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from demolishing the old roof and replacing it by a new Pakka slab roof. In this second appeal the only point that has been urged at the time o admission is that it was not a case o reconstruction but was a case of repairs which the appellants had a right to make under Section 108, T. P. Act.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that originally there was a tiled roof over the room. The appellants now want to replace it by a roof of cement slabs. They







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