Sana-ullah Vs. Yarbo - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
|Judge||John Edge, Kt., C.J. and; Knox, J.|
easement - light and air--injunction or damages--act no. i of 1877 (specific relief act), section 54. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and..........light to such an extent that he could not carry on his business. the lower appellate court granted an injunction. it is said in appeal here that the lower appellate court had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction because it could have awarded damages; and the decision in dhunjibhoy cowasji umrigar v. lisboa i.l.r. 13 bom. 252, and ghanasham nilkant nadkarni v. moroba ram chandra pai i.l.r. 18 bom. 474, were relied on. in our opinion the rule of law in such cases was correctly laid down by sir george jessel in aynsley v. glover l.r. 18 eq. 544, and by the late mr. justice pearson in holland v. worley l.r. 26 ch. d. 585. in our opinion it was never intended by the legislature that a man should not get an injunction unless his property would be practically destroyed if the.....
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.
1. This was a suit for an injunction. The plaintiff had been entitled to light and air to the full extent of his window for over twenty years. He carried on the business of a manufacturer of kincob at Benares. The defendant proceeded to build a wall which would have the effect practically of reducing the plaintiff's light to such an extent that he could not carry on his business. The Lower Appellate Court granted an injunction. It is said in appeal here that the Lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction because it could have awarded damages; and the decision in Dhunjibhoy Cowasji Umrigar v. Lisboa I.L.R. 13 Bom. 252, and Ghanasham Nilkant Nadkarni v. Moroba Ram Chandra Pai I.L.R. 18 Bom. 474, were relied on. In our opinion the rule of law in such cases was correctly laid down by Sir George Jessel in Aynsley v. Glover L.R. 18 Eq. 544, and by the late Mr. Justice Pearson in Holland v. Worley L.R. 26 Ch. D. 585. In our opinion it was never intended by the Legislature that a man should not get an injunction unless his property would be practically destroyed if the injunction were not granted. Here there was substantial injury and wrongful injury to the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff was entitled to the injunction which he got. We dismiss this appeal with costs.