Relief – Not prayed for – Grant of – Impermissibility – Original plaintiff filed suits against the respondents-original defendants seeking mandatory injunction for removal of alleged illegal encroaching wall; removal of lintel of the school building erected by defendants on the wall of the plaintiff’s house – Suits decreed by Trial Court, defendants were directed to remove the constructions and also restrained from raising any further construction – Decrees affirmed by First Appellate Court – High Court, in second appeals modified the decrees, directed the defendants to pay compensation and to treat the wall as ‘common’ between the parties – In previous round of litigation, High Court’s judgment was set aside by Supreme Court on the ground that the modification of the decrees by the High Court without entering into the merits of the controversy was impermissible and no substantial questions of law were framed while deciding the Second Appeals; matter remanded for fresh consideration – On remand, the High Court yet again set aside the decrees and directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the construction for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the plaintiff; the defendants were directed to deposit such amount in the Executing Court to be paid to the legal heirs of the plaintiff – Challenge to: Held: High Court erred in reversing the decrees passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate Court on irrelevant considerations – The initial suit filed by the original plaintiff was essentially for a decree for mandatory injunction seeking removal of the alleged encroachment undertaken at the behest of the defendants on the common open space beyond the construction of the plaintiff – According to the original plaintiff, such construction interfered with the right of the plaintiff to enjoy air and light through the ventilators as well as obstructed the passing of water through the common path – Defendants could not prove any right, title or interest on the land on which they had erected the wall – The decree was, thus, passed to remove the wall illegally erected by them – In the other suit, the Trial Court found that the defendants had put up a lintel of the school building on the wall of the plaintiff’s house illegally – A decree directing removal of the same and restraining the defendants from doing so in the future was passed – Both these decrees were upheld by the first Appellate Court – There was no prayer whatsoever made by the original plaintiff seeking any damages or compensation from the defendants for the encroachment committed by them – In absence of any such relief sought by the original plaintiff, the decree passed in his favour could not have been set aside by the High Court by compelling his legal heirs to accept compensation that was directed to be assessed by a valuer – The legal heirs of the plaintiff did not consent for such course to be followed – High Court could not have undertaken such exercise of seeking to compensate one party at the cost of the other without any prayer being made in that regard – Once the decrees passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff were set aside, there would be no occasion for the Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings since there would be no decree holding the field for being executed – Thus, directing the Executing Court to assess the value of the wall in question would be requiring it to undertake an exercise not supported by any decree whatsoever – The course adopted by the High Court does not find support u/Or.XXI, CPC – There being no prayer made by the original plaintiff in the suit for grant of any compensation nor any consent having been offered by the legal heirs of the plaintiff in that regard, the High Court could not have imposed such a direction on them, especially when there was a decree operating in their favour – Judgment of High Court unsustainable, set aside – High Court to re-consider both the appeals in accordance with s.100, CPC. [Paras 5(a)-(c), 6]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.