Sana-ullah vs Yarbo

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.—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 ILR 13 Bom. 252, and Ghanasham Nilkant Nadkarni v. Moroba Ram Chandra Pai ILR 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 IL.R. 18 Eq. 544, and by the late Mr. Justice Pearson in Holland v. Worley IL.R. 26 ChD. 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.