#Punjab and #Haryana #HighCourt: While deciding a matter on the question that whether the appellate court, while reversing the findings of fact regarding the prescriptive right to light and air and the findings regarding the peaceable manner of enjoyment of light and air, could have denied the relief by applying the provisions of Section 33 and Section 35 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 , the Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the establishment of a gross hardship caused to the aggrieved party must be proved for relief of injunction which the plaintiff in the present case failed to establish. The Court further held that Section 33 and Section 35 of the Act are provisions that would require to be examined to access the extent of disturbance that could be actionable and Section 35 should be read subject to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court also observed that the Court will grant injunction under Section 35(b) of the Act if the disturbance threatened or intended must necessarily, if performed, disturb the easement. Citing Sohanlal v. Prembar, 1988(1) RLW 655, the Court said that the defendant has already suffered greater injury than the plaintiff in the process of allowing the plaintiff for the interim order of injunction preventing the defendant the right of putting up construction and thereby the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages. [Chita Nand v. Smt. Pujari Bai, RSA No. 2026 of 1986 (O&M) , decided on July, 15, 2013] https://facebook/pages/Law-Intellect-India/336852519777399
Posted on: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:47:32 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015