Skip to content


Alagappan Vs. S. Kr. S. Karuppa Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad76; 25Ind.Cas.503
AppellantAlagappan
RespondentS. Kr. S. Karuppa Chetty and ors.
Cases ReferredUlagappan Ambalam v. Chidambaram
Excerpt:
mandatory injunction - trespasser building upon land even after objection. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence...........defendant, no other question arises for decision. the learned vakil for the appellant relies on ulagappan ambalam v. chidambaram, chetty 29 m. 497 for the position that when the plaintiff does not take steps to prevent the erection of the building in time, there ought to be no mandatory injunction in his favour. in that case the defendant built upon land comprised in his holding. in the present case the defendant was a trespasser and built upon the plaint site notwithstanding objection.2. we dismiss this second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff is the owner of both the varams and that the defendant is a trespasser. Issues Nos. 2 to 4 depend upon the finding on the 1st issue and the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that on his finding in this issue against the defendant, no other question arises for decision. The learned Vakil for the appellant relies on Ulagappan Ambalam v. Chidambaram, Chetty 29 M. 497 for the position that when the plaintiff does not take steps to prevent the erection of the building in time, there ought to be no mandatory injunction in his favour. In that case the defendant built upon land comprised in his holding. In the present case the defendant was a trespasser and built upon the plaint site notwithstanding objection.

2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //