Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Lalji Dayal vs Vishvanath Prabhuram Vaidya And Ors. on 28 September, 1928

Bodi Reddy vs Appu Goundan on 2 July, 1970

36. The last decision relied on by Mr. Parthasarathi Iyengar is Lalji Dayal v. Viswanath Prabhuram Vaidya and Ors. A.I.R. 1929 Bom 137 already referred to, by Wadsworth, J., in his decision already discussed. That was a case of the defendant's gallery overhanging the plaintiff's open space. With reference to the facts and circumstances of that case, the learned Judges held that damages would be the proper remedy and not mandatory injunction. That again was not a suit for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs' property from the defendant on the basis of trespass but one for a bare injunction.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Sukhraj And Ors. vs Poshi Bai And Anr. on 2 December, 1998

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the site plan Ex. 1 shows that the houses of both the parties are adjacent to each other but the constructed area of the house of the plaintiff was quite far off from the wall raised and that there was an open land adjacent to it over which the defendants had a right of access and ingress towards the land. He submitted that the mandatory injunction should not have been granted when the pecuniary compensation could be adequate. For this proposition he cited AIR 1936 Madras page 687, Nidamarti Jaladurga Prasadarayudu v. Ladooram Sowcar and Anr. AIR 1929 Bombay page 137, Lalji Dayal v. Vishvanath Prabhuram Vaidya and Ors. in Lalji Daya's case (supra) the facts were that a gallery was erected overhanging other's open land. Notice after completion of gallery was given and roof was put up after notice. There was no dishonest motive or intentional trespass and in such a case mandatory injunction was refused as money compensation was found sufficient. This order was passed in second appeal decided on 28.9.1928 by Hon'ble Mirza and Baker,JJ. as they then were.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Piladram vs Surjansingh on 14 December, 1972

The Bombay High Court in Lalji Dayal v. Vishvanath Prabhuram Vaidya AIR 1929 Bom 137 held that when the issue of a mandatory injunction would involve the removal of a completed structure which entails no inconvenience and only a slight invasion of the plaintiff's rights, not committed wantonly or after protest, pecuniary compensation is the more appropriate remedy." In that case, a gallery projecting over the defendant's land v. as allowed to remain on payment of compensation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T. Prasad And Ors. vs P.D. Punnoose And Anr. on 11 March, 1994

5. Counsel for the defendants relying on Lalji v. Vishvanath(AIR 1929 Bom 137)(DB) contended that in the absence of dishonesty of purpose of or knowledge of trespass, the case did not call for a mandatory injunction, but was one where substantial monetary compensation would suffice. This ruling has no application to the facts of the case in hand as the evidence really discloses the fact that trespass continued even after the institution of the suit. As the defendants caused the destruction of the boundary wall even after the institution of the suit, it cannot be held that it is a case where pecuniary compensation in lieu of mandatory injunction would suffice. As the plaintiffs have approached the Court for relief of mandatory injunction and as the evidence shows that the western boundary wall of the plaintiffs property was destroyed with scant regard of their proprietary right, award of monetary compensation cannot be the just remedy.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Nidamarti Jaladurga Prasadarayudu vs Ladooram Sowcar And Anr. on 17 October, 1935

3. Now it is a statutory rule that an injunction should only be granted when pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. But I do not think it follows therefrom that a Court has always the power to grant pecuniary compensation for a wrong whenever an injunction is asked for. The Courts have recognized that, when the issue of a mandatory injunction would involve the removal of a completed structure which entails no inconvenience and only a slight invasion of the plaintiff's rights, not committed wantonly or after protest, pecuniary compensation is the more appropriate remedy. A good illustration is the case reported in Lalji Dayal v. Vishvanath Prabhuram Vaidya 1929 Bom 137, where a gallery projecting over the defendant's land was allowed to remain on payment of compensation, an injunction being refused. I am inclined to think that on the analogy of this and similar cases, the trial Court's decree regarding the projecting corner of the kitchen may be justified. But I am by no means convinced of the propriety of the lower appellate Court's decree regarding the wall, the effect of which is to enable the respondents by virtue of their encroachment to compel the appellant to cede title in a strip of land over 299 feet long and of a width varying between 1 and 2i feet, including a number of trees. Of course the injunction granted by the trial Court involves the removal of the wall and consequent expenses to respondents but the appellants sued for possession as well as for an injunction; they have proved title and there is nothing except the inconvenience, and expense to the respondents which has prevented the lower appellate; Court from granting the injunction. I have not been referred to any case in which a similar compulsory acquisition of a considerable strip of land has been effected under the guise of monetary compensation in lieu of an injunction; and I do not think that the lower appellate Court's decree in this respect is proper. Nor do I think that the lower appellate Court was justified in interfering with the trial Court's order regarding costs which seems to have been based on a reasonable consideration of all the circumstances. In the result, therefore S. A. No. 894 is allowed in part and the decree of the trial Court is restored. S.A. No. 895 is dismissed except that the trial Court's order regarding costs is restored. Respondents will pay the costs of the appellants in both appellate Courts in S.A. No. 894 and appellants will pay the costs of the respondents in both appellate Courts in S. A. No. 895. Leave to appeal granted to both sides in both appeals.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1