SURENDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. HARI MOHAN MISSER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, which arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from building an indigo factory on the land held by defendant No. 6 under the plaintiff, the question raised on behalf of the plaintiff appellant is whether the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that the manufacture of indigo was an agricultural purpose.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents contends that not only is the learned Judge below right in the view has taken that the manufacture of indigo is an agricultural purpose, but that the conclusion he has arrived at, that the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed, is incapable of being interfered with in second appeal, because it is based upon the finding of fact that the defendants have done nothing in violation of the conditions of the tenancy; and he further contends that the suit is also liable to dismissal on the ground that a suit for injunction is not maintainable, where, if the plaintiff's contention be right, a more complete remedy by ejectment of the tenant defendant was obtainable.

(3.) Upon these contentions the questions that arise for consideration are, first, whether the manufacture of indigo is an agricultural, purpose; and if not, whether the erection of an indigo factory on land leased for agricultural purposes, makes the land-unfit for the purposes of the tenancy; second, whether there is any finding of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court which makes its judgment unassailable in second appeal; and, third, whether the remedy by way of injunction is claimable by the plaintiff.