Skip to content


Bhramar Lal Banduri and ors. Vs. Najstda Lal Chowdhuri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in24Ind.Cas.199
AppellantBhramar Lal Banduri and ors.
RespondentNajstda Lal Chowdhuri
Cases ReferredDavenport v. Davenport
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1877), section 56, ill. (i) - injunction--plaintiff out of possession--suit for simple injunction without recovery of possession, whether lies--privity between parties. - .....injunction when he ought to sue for recovery of the land.3. accordingly i would decree the appeal and restore the decision of the munsif with costs throughout.ray, j.4. i agree. the learned subordinate judge says that the plaintiffs have constructive possession through their recorded tenant. this is not correct. the original tenant is not now on the land. the plaintiffs allege that he had no assignable interest. they further allege that defendant has no right to the land. that means he is a trespasser. in a case like this relief can be obtained by the usual proceeding in ejectment and section 56 of the specific relief act lays down that the exceptional relief by injunction should not be allowed, vide illustration (i). the appeal should be decreed.
Judgment:

Coxe, J.

1. This was a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant from digging up the land in his possession for the purpose of making bricks. The Munsif dismissed, the suit holding that as the plaintiff was out of possession the suit was not maintainable. The Subordinate Judge in appeal hold that this view was erroneous and accordingly decreed the plaintiffs suit. The defendant appeals.

2. The question whether a suit of this nature is maintainable by a plaintiff who is out of possession is discussed in the case of Davenport v. Davenport (1849) 7 Hare Rep. 217 : 68 Eng. Rep. 89 : 18 L.J.Ch. 163 : 13 Jur. 227 : 82 R.R. 76. That case may be regarded as authority that the Courts will not interfere by way of injunction when the plaintiff is out of possession unless there is some privity between the parties. As pointed out in Lowndes v. Bettle (1864) 33 L.J. Ch. 451 : 10 Jur. (n. s.) 226 : 12 W.R. 399 : 10 L.T. (n. s.) 55 : 3 N.R. 409 : 143 R.R. 388., the tendency of decisions has been to break down the unreasonable distinction between waste and trespass, and in Davenport v. Davenport (1849) 7 Hare Rep. 217 : 68 Eng. Rep. 89 : 18 L.J. Ch. 163 : 13 Jur. 227 : 82 R. R. 76. the refusal of an injunction was regretted. Indeed in such a case as the latter in which an action of ejectment was also pending the Courts in India would probably grant an injunction. But it certainly seems to me wrong that when a plaintiff avers that the defendant is on his land without any right whatever, he should be allowed to sue for an injunction when he ought to sue for recovery of the land.

3. Accordingly I would decree the appeal and restore the decision of the Munsif with costs throughout.

Ray, J.

4. I agree. The learned Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiffs have constructive possession through their recorded tenant. This is not correct. The original tenant is not now on the land. The plaintiffs allege that he had no assignable interest. They further allege that defendant has no right to the land. That means he is a trespasser. In a case like this relief can be obtained by the usual proceeding in ejectment and Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act lays down that the exceptional relief by injunction should not be allowed, vide illustration (i). The appeal should be decreed.


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