Rambilas and ors. Vs. Jagatram

- madhya pradesh municipal corporation act (23 of 1956)section 91 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k.seth, jj] public nuisance - suit for injunction - held, section 91(i) of the c.p.c. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party even in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. the remedy of the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of section 91 of the c.p.c. and not only the corporation but any other person can apply to the district court for injunction or removal or alteration of a building on the ground that the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder have been contravened. sections 41(j) & 4 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k. seth, jj] relief of injunction held, the reliefs under the specific relief act, 1963 are granted for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights as will be clear from section 4 of the specific relief act. 1963. accordingly, injunction under part iii of the specific relief act, 1963 is granted to the plaintiff either to prevent a breach of an obligation in favour of the plaintiff, or to compel the performance of an obligation in his favour. unless, therefore, there is an obligation in favour of the plaintiff which needs to be enforced, the court cannot grant injunction. hence, it is provided in section 41(j) of the specific relief act. 1963 that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. the provisions of the specific relief act, 1963 do not apply to the right conferred on the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of m.p. municipal corporation act, 1956. under the provisions of the act of 1956, every building must comply with the provisions of the act..........original plaintiff. defendant jagatram is his brother. amal sai had purchased land-- khasra no. 513 area 1.323 hectares of village beldagi, tehsil ambikapur, district sarguja by registered sale-deed dated 3-5-1962. there is a concurrent finding of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court that the house in dispute was constructed by defendant jagatram on a small portion of the land with the consent of his brother amal sai. it has also been held that the defendant is in possession of that house since the year 1964. the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1980. it has been held that the defendant has acquired title to the land on which he has built the house by adverse possession for more than twelve years. the plaintiffs' suit for possession was held to be barred by limitation. these findings are based on evidence on record. there is no perversity in these findings. the defendant has built his house on the land belonging to his brother amal sai with his consent or acquiescence.3. it is argued on behalf of the appellants that in such a case possession of the defendant could not be adverse. in the facts and circumstances of this case, the licence granted by amal sai to his brother jagatram has become irrevocable in view of section 60(b) of the easements act. that is based on the principle of estoppel by acquiescence. in fazal haq v. data ram, air 1975 allahabad 373, it has been held by the division bench that when the licensee acting upon a licence has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution the licence cannot be revoked by the grantor. the man who stands by and allows another person to build on his land, in the belief that he has power or authority to do so, and incurs expenses in such building, cannot turn round and claim the removal of such building on the ground that the latter had no authority to build. he is estopped by his conduct from adopting that course and the law will presume an.....