Sana-ullah Vs. Yarbo

easement - light and air--injunction or damages--act no. i of 1877 (specific relief act), section 54. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being.....john edge, kt., c.j. and knox, j.1. this was a suit for an injunction. the plaintiff had been entitled to light and air to the full extent of his window for over twenty years. he carried on the business of a manufacturer of kincob at benares. the defendant proceeded to build a wall which would have the effect practically of reducing the plaintiff's light to such an extent that he could not carry on his business. the lower appellate court granted an injunction. it is said in appeal here that the lower appellate court had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction because it could have awarded damages; and the decision in dhunjibhoy cowasji umrigar v. lisboa i.l.r. 13 bom. 252, and ghanasham nilkant nadkarni v. moroba ram chandra pai i.l.r. 18 bom. 474, were relied on. in our opinion the rule of law in such cases was correctly laid down by sir george jessel in aynsley v. glover l.r. 18 eq. 544, and by the late mr. justice pearson in holland v. worley l.r. 26 ch. d. 585. in our opinion it was never intended by the legislature that a man should not get an injunction unless his property would be practically destroyed if the injunction were not granted. here there was substantial injury and wrongful injury to the plaintiff's rights. the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction which he got. we dismiss this appeal with costs.