Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Rashid And Ors. vs B. Braham Saran on 1 March, 1938

Babu Lal vs Ram Prasad And Ors. on 29 September, 1938

185 and Abdul Rashid v. Braham Saran (1938) 25 A.I.R. All. 293. In view of these decisions it is impossible to hold that by holding possession of a plot of land for more than 20 years a tenant could claim a prescriptive right for the use of that plot as against his landholder. Similarly Section 13, Easements Act, is of no avail to the tenants for the simple reason that that Section is confined in its operation to easements of necessity and quasi easements accruing on transfer or testamentary disposition of immovable property or on a partition being made of joint property. Easements of necessity or quasi easements for the convenient occupation of agricultural holdings are unknown to law as administered in this country. I am aware that a tenant of a holding in a village is entitled to take advantage of customary easements recognized by Section 18, Easements Act (Act 5 of 1882). But such easements cannot be characterized as appurtenant to the holding of a particular tenant for the simple reason that such easements by their very nature are for the benefit of all who by virtue of a proved custom are entitled to take advantage of the same and not for the benefit of one particular tenant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

S.Vimala Bai vs C.N.Kumaran on 27 April, 2021

In Abdul Rashid v. Braham Saran, ILR (1938) AII 538 (AIR 1938 AII 293) a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held, on the principle embodied In section 12, that the possession of a tenant being in law the possession of his land lord, the tenant cannot acquire by prescription an easement in favour of his holding except on behalf of his landlord. The Full Bench, however, made a distinction between https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21/36 S.A.No 266 of 2017 an easementary right of way and an easementary right of light and air mentioned in the first two paragraphs of S. 15, and held that though a lessee of land, who is the owner of the building on such land, cannot acquire by prescription an easement of way one to flow water over another right of land of the lessor, so far as the use of light and air or support for his building is concerned he is the owner of the building and may under the first acquire two paragraphs of S. 15 acquire such easements as he would not them for any one except himself under S. 12.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Nathu Lal And Ors. vs Ram Swaroop And Ors. on 21 February, 1986

In this connection, he has placed reliance on Abdul Rashid v. B. Braham Saran, AIR 1938 All 293 (FB) wherein it has been observed that "a lessee of the land which he has taken for building purpose, is not in the position of an owner of immovable property Under Section 12 of the Easements Act for the purpose of a right of way and hence, such person cannot acquire the right of way by easement over other land owned by his lessor".
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai vs Purshottam Motilal on 4 March, 1964

27. In view of my finding about the four feet wide strip, it Is wholly unnecessary to consider the question as to whether the plaintiff has acquired a right to lake light and air through the windows as easements by user for over a statutory period. Only a few observations would therefore, suffice on this point. Before succeeding on this point, the plaintiff has to cross two hurdles. The first is that a lessee cannot acquire an easementary right to take light and air as against the land of his lessor and the second is that the plaintiff has not enjoyed the fight to take light and air with the consciousness that the windows open against the land of another. On the first point, Mr. Deo referred me to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Rashid v. Brahan Saran . In that case, their Lordships held that although a lessee of land, which he has taken for building purposes, cannot acquire a right of way by prescription over the land of the landlord, he may acquire such a right so far as the passage of light and air through, the windows opening on the latter's property is concerned. This distinction was based on the provisions of Sections. 2 and 3 of the English Prescription Act of 1832.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad vs Purushotram on 5 April, 1971

In Abdul Rashid v. Brahman Saran(1) a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held, on the principle embodied in s. 12, that the possession of a tenant being in law the possession of his landlord, the tenant cannot acquire by prescription an easement in favour of his holding except on behalf of his landlord. The Full Bench, however, made a distinction between an easementary right of way and an easementary right of light and air mentioned in the first two paragraphs of s. 15, and held that though a lessee of land, who is the owner of the building on such land, cannot acquire by prescription an easement of a right of way or one to flow water over another land of the lessor, so far as the use of light and air or support for his building is concerned he is the owner of the building and may under the first two paragraphs of s. 15 acquire such easements as he would not acquire them for any one except himself under S. 12.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Sudesh Sidhana vs Sunder Dass on 30 November, 2015

In Abdul Rashid v. B. Braham Saran [AIR 1938 All 293 : ILR 1938 All 538 : 175 IC 241 : 1938 All LJ 436] , relying on the observations of Lord Cairns in Gayford v. Moffatt [LR (1868) 4 Ch A 133 : 33 JP 212 (LC)] to the effect that it would be inequitable for a lessee to prescribe against the landlord as regards the acquisition of a right of way or any other easement, it was held by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court that a lessee of the land which he has taken for building purposes is not in the position of an owner of immovable property under Section 12 of the Act for the purpose of a right of way and hence such person cannot acquire the right of way by easement over other land owned by his lessor.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ambaram Popat Vankar vs Budhalal Mahasukram Shah on 15 January, 1943

5. The learned Judge in second appeal held, however, that in the case of a right to light, the right was acquired by the owner of the house, and not by the owner of the land, and that as the plaintiff was the owner of the house built on the land in his lease, he acquired this right on behalf of himself as against his landlord who was not the owner of the house. The learned Judge based his decision on a full bench case in the Allahabad High Court Abdul Rashid v. Braham Saran [1938] All. 538, F.B. That was a case dealing with a right of way, and had nothing to do with an easement of light. However, the Court did express the view that the English rule might apply in the case of easements of light, because the easement was acquired on behalf of the house and not on behalf of the land, and Mr. Justice Wassoodew followed that opinion. I must confess that I am wholly unable to agree with that view. I demur to the suggestion that a lessee who builds a house as a permanent structure on the land comprised in the lease becomes the owner of the house for more than the leasehold interest in the land. He may have a right to remove the house; and he may even be regarded as the owner of the materials of which the house is built. But that is the ownership of a chattel, and an easement cannot be annexed to a chattel. If the lessee becomes the absolute owner of a house built on the land leased, it would be necessary at the termination of the lease to convey the house, if not removed, by a registered document to the lessor. This of course is unnecessary as the house with the land reverts to the lessor. The doctrine that an easement of light can be acquired on behalf of a house, apart from the land, would lead to singular results. Supposing that a right to light is enjoyed for twenty years in respect of the windows of a leasehold house, and at the end of the lease the house is pulled down, what happens to the easement? If it was acquired on behalf of the house, presumably it would be destroyed on the destruction of the house. But I apprehend that in such a case there cannot be the slightest doubt that if the landlord, without any statutory interruption, built another house the windows of which were in the same position as the windows of the old house and enjoyed the same shaft of light, he would be entitled to a right to light for those windows. In my opinion the plaintiff did not before 1920 begin to acquire an easement of light over adjoining land belonging to his landlord and therefore his suit must fail. This was the view of the Assistant Judge in first appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1