Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maola & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bahoru - Respondent
S.A. No. 1645 of 1921
Decided On : 17-04-1923
JUDGMENT
Daniels, J. - This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for demolition of certain constructions erected on the plaintiff's land. The defence was that the constructions were 25 years old. The plaintiff alleged that they were made only in 1917. On the question of fact the Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff but the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of equitable estoppel holding that the plaintiff lived in the same village and close to the land in dispute, that he allowed the buildings to be put up without objection and that he waited three years before bringing his suit. The lower appellate Court has taken a different view of the evidence. It holds on the evidence that the plaintiff did not acquiesce but in fact while the constructions were going on he tried to prevent the defendants from erecting them. It further finds that the defendants had no reasonable belief that they were the owners of the disputed land on which the constructions were made. On these findings it is impossible to bring the case within the principle of equitable estoppel laid down by the Privy Council in Beni Ram's case (1899) 21 All. 496= 26 I. A. 58= 3 C.W.N. 502= 1 Bom. L.R. 400= 7 Bar. 523 (P.C.) and applied in numerous subsequent cases of this Court. The suit has been rightly decreed and I dismiss the appeal with costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
