TMI Blog1921 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 authorised the first defendant to take out within a mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aker (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's trees overhang, may force the latter to cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee 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 need not attempt an exposition of the full significance of the term obl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s; indeed, special ritual is prescribed for the planting of trees for the benefit of the public (see Prannath Saraswati, Hindu Law of Endowments, Tagore Law Lectures, 1892, Chapter IX, pages 230 246; see page 214, where, the rules ordained by Manu and Vishnu for the inflation of punishment upon persons who destroy trees are quoted from Manu 1(sic) 48, VIII, 285, XI-143, 145, Vishnu V 55-59). But the view cannot be maintained that the rules be prescribed in the ancient tests are authorities in favour of the recognition of a legal obligation of the requisite character. We hold, accordingly, that the refusal to grant a perpetual injunction will not lead to the breach of an obligation, that is, of a duty enforceable by law which the plaintiffs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
