AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (3) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 961/5. In the first instance the term of the lease was 30 years from the year 1934 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 Rs. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the indifferent attitude adopted by the appellant the respondent could not have 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecree for injunction and it was held that injunction need not necessarily be granted 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest in land or what amounts to the same thing, under an expectation, created or encouraged 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 afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing his legal right. In such a case equity will intervene for the protection of A". Referring 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 ....