TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1921 (8) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efendant instituted a suit against the second defendant for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the tree and for damages. On the 20th May 1917 that suit was decreed, and the first defendant became entitled to remove the tree unless the second defendant removed it within fifteen days. That decree was affirmed on appeal on the 22nd January 1919. Thereupon, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on the allegation that the tree was a sacred tree, that it had been duly consecrated, that it was worshipped by the orthodox Hindu people of the locality, and that its removal would be an invasion of their religion and would offend their religious sentiments. The Court of first instance decreed the suit, granted a permanent injunction and aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n propounded three centuries earlier in Norris v. Baker (1613) 1 Roll. Rep. 393 : 81 E. R. 559. (See also Viner's Abridgment, Volume XX, page 417). The same view has been affirmed directly or by implication in subsequent cases; amongst these may be mentioned Smith v. Giddy (1904) 2 K. R. 448: 73 L. J. K. B. 894 : 91. L. T. 296 : 53 W. R. 207: 20 T. L. R. 596 Cheater v. Cater (1918) 1 K. B. 247 : 82 L. J. K. B. 449. Mills v. Brooker (1919) 1 K. B. 555 : 83 L. J. K. B. 950 : 121 L. T. 254 : 17 L. G. R. 238 : 63. S. J. 431 : 35 T. L. R. 261. This is by no means a singular rule of law and in this connection reference may be made to the Code Napoleon tr. Barrett: Article 672 provided as follows: He whose property the branches of a neighbour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ists in their favour and would be infringed by the execution of the decree held by the first defendant against the second defendant. The plaintiffs can succeed only if they can establish, first, that the first defendant is under an obligation to keep on her land a tree considered sacred by the plaintiffs, even though the tree does damage to the property of the adjoining owner; and, secondly, that the second defendant is under an obligation to acquiesce in the continued existence of such a tree on the land of the adjoining proprietor even though such tree does damage to his own property. There mast be obligations recognised by law. Section 3 of the Specific Belief Act states that the term obligation includes every duty enforceable by law. We....