Kripa Ram Sahu And Another vs Adarsh Shikshan Samiti 16 ... on 27 August, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

Kripa Ram Sahu And Another vs Adarsh Shikshan Samiti 16 ... on 27 August, 2018

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                               1

                                                                               NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  S.A. No. 165 of 2003

     1. Kriparam Sahu, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Hiralal Sahu, R/o Sadar
        South Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.)

     2. Virendra Kumar Sahu, aged about 45 years, S/o Kriparam Sahu, R/o Sadar
        South Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Appellants/ Plaintiffs

                                         Versus

        Adarsh Shikshan Samiti, Dhamtari, through Chimanlal Mehta, aged about
        70 years, S/o Late Moolji Mehta, R/o Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil and
        District Dhamtari (C.G.)                  --- Respondent / Defendant

For Appellants / Plaintiffs : Mr. B. D. Guru, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 27/08/18

1. The plaintiffs' suit for easementary right and permanent injunction was partly allowed by the trial Court stating that the plaintiffs have no easementary right on the way on the disputed land however, their easementary right for opening the doors and windows towards the suit land was granted by the trial Court. The said finding has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court against which this second appeal has been preferred.

2. Mr. B. D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for appellants would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below in partly rejecting the suit with regard to the easementary right on the suit way is perverse and contrary to law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

4. The two Courts below have partly allowed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have easementary right of opening doors and windows towards the 2 suit way / land in dispute but they have no easementary right over the suit way. The said finding recorded by the two Courts below is a finding of fact based on record and as such, I do not find any illegality or perversity in said findings.

5. Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court