Perpetual injunction requires an enforceable legal obligation; sacred status of a tree alone cannot block execution of a removal decree.

A perpetual injunction under specific relief law is available only to prevent breach of a legal obligation enforceable by law. Mere religious sanctity, worship, or reverence for a tree does not create such a duty in favour of the plaintiffs. As no enforceable legal obligation was shown to require the defendants to retain the tree on their land, injunction could not restrain execution of a decree directing its removal as a nuisance affecting adjoining property. The refusal of injunction was therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a perpetual injunction could be granted to restrain execution of a decree for removal of a tree alleged to be sacred, on the footing that its removal would breach a legal obligation in favour of the plaintiffs.

Analysis: A perpetual injunction under the law of specific relief can be granted only to prevent breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant, and an obligation means a duty enforceable by law. The plaintiffs failed to show any legal duty requiring the defendants to maintain the tree on their land merely because it was consecrated, worshipped, or regarded as sacred. Religious reverence, without a corresponding legal obligation, cannot support a decree for perpetual injunction against enforcement of a competent court's decree obtained to remove a nuisance affecting adjoining property.

Conclusion: No perpetual injunction was maintainable, and the refusal of such relief was ; the plaintiffs' appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree refusing injunction was affirmed, and the suit for restraining execution of the removal decree was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A perpetual injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a legal obligation enforceable by law; mere religious sanctity or moral duty does not create such an obligation.

---