Back
Lahore High Court
Addison, J.
Municipal Committee, Hansi - Appellant
Versus
Mehtab Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 18-11-1930
JUDGMENT
Addison, J. - The plaintiff brought his suit against the Municipal Committee, Hansi, for a mandatory injunction to issue upon the defendant to rebuild a khal at a certain place at their own expense and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from building a drain on the site in question as it belonged to the plaintiff.
2. The trial Court held that the site belonged to the plaintiff, that the khal was illegally demolished by the President of the Committee, that the suit for a mandatory injunction could not proceed under Section 49, Municipal Act, and Section 54, Specific Relief Act, but that the suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with and building a drain upon the site was competent. It accordingly gave a decree for the issue of the perpetual injunction described. Against this decision there were two appeals to the Senior Subordinate Judge and he dismissed them both. Against this decision the Municipal Committee has preferred this second appeal.
3. The one point argued was that, seeing that a portion of the relief was barred by reason of Section 49, Punjab Municipal Act and Section 54, Specific Relief Act, the whole suit was barred. I do not agree. It has long been held that a suit for a declaration as to ownership and a perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Committee from interfering with the property in future does lie under Section 54, Specific Relief Act, and the proviso to Section 49, Municipal Act. The fact that two reliefs were claimed does not make the suit in its entirety illegal. It was proper to dismiss the suit as regards the illegal relief claimed and to decree it as regards the legal relief as has been done.
4. I therefore 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
