9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but this period has not been extended by a further period of 20 years. The respondent purchased one acre from out of S. No. 961/5 from its owner sometime during the year 1950. The respondent had to store Chinese crackers in which he had business and for that purpose he built on the land in the year 1950 a magazine, watchman's quarters, etc. The work was commenced that year and was completed in the following year, the respondent having spent nearly ₹ 17000. It is stated that the building put up would not be worth twice the amount spent. It is found that by putting up the buildings he had occupied an extent of 79 cents of land in S. No. 950/1 which is Government's property and in respect of which a mining lease in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been encouraged to put up the buildings. It is not pretended that the appellant was not aware of the buildings coming up. Not withstanding the view expressed by the appellate judge, one can easily see that there must have been some kind of acquiescence on the part of the appellant while the respondent was putting up his buildings. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court filed a second appeal title of the appellant to 79 cents of land held that in the circumstances, it would be unjust to pass a decree for possession of the property. The learned Judge accepted the finding of the lower court that the appellant could, if they had cared, have found out in time that the respondent was trying to encroac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against a trespasser under all circumstances; in granting such a discretionary relief the court could mould the relief in accordance with the justice of the case. The case before us is not one simpliciter for any injunction; is one for recovery of possession by the owner against the trespasser. However, it is argues on the authority of Jaladurga Prasadarayudu v. Ladooram Sowcar AIR1936Mad687 that even in such cases monetary compensation could be given in lien if possession. In that case Wadsworth J. held that where the issue of mandatory injunction, would involve the removal of a completed structure, which so long as it stood entailed no inconvenience to the plaintiff but amounted only to a slight invasion of his rights and where such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouraged by the landlord that he shall have a certain interest, take possession of such land, with the consent of the land and upon the faith of such promise or expectation with the knowledge of the landlord and without objection by him lays out money upon the land a court of equity will compel the landlord to give effect to such promise or expectation . In Beniram v. Kundanlal, ILR 21 ALL 496 a question arose whether a landlord would be entitled to a building erected by a tenancy after his term of lease had expired. The Privy Council recognised that while the landlord would not be precluded by any rule of equity form recovering possession of the land after the expiry of the tenancy even when the tenant had put up permanent structures on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring to his equitable doctrine Lord Russel stated It is a doctrine which is sometimes alluded to under the name of equitable estoppel. Whether there can be any estoppel which is equitable is distinct from legal and whether equitable estoppel is an accurate phrase, their Lordships do not pause to enquire. The foundation upon which reposes the right of equity to intervene, is either contract or the existence of some fact which the legal owner is estopped from denying. Thus in the case put, B's conduct is such that from it may be inferred a contract by B that the land is A's upon the faith which A has acted and built . That test has undoubtedly been satisfied in this case. 5. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld both be entitled to recover any damages for the portion of the land occupied by the respondent. The learned Judge, has, however, directed remand of the case for the purpose of ascertaining compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent. We are unable to see on what ground that direction can be justified. But the respondent has not complained against the order by filing any cross appeal memorandum of cross objections. Under the circumstances we leave the direction of the learned judge as it stands. Before concluding we wish to make it clear that the estoppel by which the appellant is precluded from recovering possession of the property from the respondent is purely a personal one. It will not affect the Government, when they ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
