(1.) Defendant is the appellant. The suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Munsiff, but decreed by the District Judge in appeal.
(2.) Plaint A schedule property is the paddy field belonging to the plaintiff. East of it, defendant is having 27 cents of paddy field which is higher in level than the plaintiff's paddy field by 8 feet. In between the two paddy fields there is a canal and a bund together having a width of 5 feet. Plaint B schedule property is land measuring 20 feet in width out of the defendant's paddy field lying adjacent to that of the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has dug pits in B schedule property for planting rubber. Alleging that the rubber plants when grown up will cause damage to his cultivation plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from planting rubber or other shady trees in B schedule property and from using B schedule property for any purpose damageous to the use of his property. The prayer for injunction was thus put very widely. The claim was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. A commission was issued and the commissioner submitted a report and sketch. Plaintiff examined some witnesses and produced documents also.
(3.) The report of the commissioner and the evidence of the witnesses is to the effect that if rubber is planted in B schedule property and if those plants grow up into trees at a proximity of 20 feet from the eastern boundary of A schedule property, those trees will cause shadow to A schedule property and make cultivation difficult by falling leaves and seeds. The trial Court held that what is alleged is only apprehended injury and cause of action for injunction is only when actual injury is suffered. The appellate Court held that when the trees are grown up, the overhanging branches, and the falling seeds and leaves will render plaintiff's paddy field fallow if at least a clearance of 20 feet is not maintained. The view taken by the appellate court was that there is no point in leaving the plaintiff to suffer apprehended injury. Therefore, the wide and omnibus prayer for injunction was allowed by the appellate court without any reservation at all. By the granting of such an injunction what the District Judge did was to prevent the defendant from planting rubber trees or other shady trees and using his property for any purpose which could be considered damaging to the use of the plaintiff's property. Under the cover of such an injunction even a prospective construction of a building in the defendant's property could be prevented. That means any legal and reasonable use to which the defendant is entitled to put his property could be prevented on the ground that it is damaging the use of the plaintiff's property.