Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. C. PANDEY
KANRAJ KHATRI - Appellant
Versus
NATHURAM JAIN - Respondents
C. R. 819 Of 1996
Decided On : 07/26/1996
EASEMENT - RIGHT TO LIGHT AND AIR - ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION - INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - EQUITABLE RELIEF - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of easement in respect of light and air passing from the windows of his house and sought permanent injunction to restrain defendants from constructing any structure within three meters of his house. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiff had no prima facie case and that he had not come to the court with clean hands. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's order and granted temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had not pleaded and proved that he had enjoyed the right of easement for twenty years without interruption. The court also found that the plaintiff had violated the law by constructing his own house without leaving a three meters' space as per the rules framed under the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and that he had not come to the court with clean hands. The court further held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants as they had already started construction of their house and that the plaintiff had delayed in filing the suit. The court also held that the plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable injury as there was an alternative way from which light and air could pass to his house.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction? 2. Whether the plaintiff had come to the court with clean hands? 3. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff or the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction was not granted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To establish a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must show that he has a serious question to be tried, that the balance of convenience is in his favor, and that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. 2. The clean hands doctrine requires that a plaintiff must come to court with clean hands in order to be entitled to equitable relief. 3. In determining the balance of convenience, the court must consider the relative inconvenience that will be caused to the parties if the injunction is granted or refused. 4. Irreparable injury is an injury that cannot be compensated by money.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the lower appellate court, and restored the order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction.
( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the defendants against the appellate order dated 10-4-96, passed by IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bastar, in Misc. Civil Appcal No. 3 of 1996. The lower appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the trial Court refusing the grant of temporary injunction.
( 2 ) THE non-applicant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to right of easement in respect of light and air passing from the windows of the eastern wall of his house and he also claimed permanent injunction that the applicants/defendants shall be restrained from constructing any structure within three meters of his house or any other distance determined by the Court. It was also claimed that a mandatory injunction be issued to the applicants/defendants that in case, they have obstructed the light and air to the house of the non-applicant, then they be asked to remove the structure obstructing the light and air going to the house of the nonapplicant.
( 3 ) SHORTLY stated, the case of the nonapplicant was that he had constructed a house on Plot No. 124/7, Sheet No. 91, area 1284 sq. ft. in Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur. The applicants purchased an open plot on eastern side of the house in the year I995. It formed the part of Sheet No. 9t, bearing Plot No. 124/9, area 980 sq. ft. and Plot No. l24/10, area 1020 sq. ft. It was further alleged that the applicants were brothers and members of the Joint Hindu Pamily. They had purchased the aforesaid two plots after dividing them in two parts as aforesaid and got them registered in the individual names. The situation of the two plots was shown in the plaint map from which it was clear that the house of the non-applicant fell of the western side of the plot of both the applicants.
( 4 ) IT was claimed by the non-applicant that, having purchased the plot in the year 1969 he constructed a new house in the year 1974/75 after demolishing the old house on that plot and since then he was living in that house. It was also pleaded that he had constructed a wall on the eastern side of the house. It had several windows from which the non-applicant was enjoying light and air since the date of construction.
( 5 ) WHEN the applicants started construction in their plot, the non-applicant came to know that the applicant shall construct their house very close to eastern wall. Thereupon, the non-applicant orally requested the applicant not to do so. According to the case of the non-applicant, the applicant had then promised that they will not obstruct any light and air in his house. However, they did not fulfil their promise and began to construct their house in accordance with their original plea. It was claimed by the non-applicant that he apprehended that the applicants shall construct their buildings so close to the house of the non-applicant that there shall be no room for light and air entering into his house, through the eastern part of his house, where he had got constructed several windows.
( 6 ) NON-APPLICANT claimed that he had enjoyed this right of easement from the date of purchase of the plot and house in the year 1969 and continued to do so without obstruction for twenty years. He claimed that as per S. 15 of the Indian Easements Act the non-applicant has acquired the right of easement which the applicants could not obstruct or interfere with. For this reason, the applicants had filed the suit for the reliefs already indicated above.
( 7 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the non-applicant also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction claiming that the applicants be restrained from making further construction as was being done by them. This application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was opposed by the applicants during the trial. They denied the allegations made in the plaint and claimed, inter alia, that the non-applicant got constructed his house in the year 1987. They blamed the non-applicant him
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
