Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the defendant, having constructed a house on the plaintiff's land with her consent and without any agreement as to ownership, was entitled to compensation or, alternatively, to remove the materials of the house if the plaintiff declined to pay its value.
Analysis: The English maxim that what is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil was held inapplicable to Indian law. In the absence of any agreement transferring the structure to the landowner, the matter had to be resolved on general principles recognised in Indian law. The distinction between a trespasser and a person who builds with consent was material. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was referred to as embodying the equitable principle applicable to improvements made in good faith, while Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 was noted but found unnecessary to decide. On the facts, the defendant built the house knowing the land belonged to the plaintiff, but with her consent, and the structure had not passed to the plaintiff by any known legal process such as gift or agreement.
Conclusion: The defendant was entitled to require the plaintiff to elect either to pay compensation and keep the house or to permit removal of the materials and restoration of the land.