Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Arangasamy vs Valarmathy on 3 April, 2009

Natesa Gounder vs Raja Gounder on 1 October, 2012

(iii) 2009 (3) CTC 442 of this court [Arangasamy vs. Valarmathy and another] "8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would reiterate the grounds as found set out in the memorandum of second appeal. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendants would appropriately and correctly put forth his argument to the effect that the trial Court in its judgement pointed out that P.W.2-the vendor of the plaintiff admitted in unequivocal and unambiguous terms that he himself was not using the suit pathway, but on the other hand he was having ingress and egress to the property, which was sold by him to the plaintiff, directly from the Road situated to the North of the said property. As such, the very admission of P.W.2-the vendor of the plaintiff proved fatal to the case of the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

M/S. Kalyan Spinning Mills vs M. Chellappan

13. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the plaintiffs have come to Court with a case of easement of necessity. After Exs.B9 and B10 this right stood extinguished, since the properties purchased under Exs.B9 and B10 abut Sathi Main Road thereby proving that the plaintiff has an alternate pathway to reach the pathway through the property purchased by him in S.No.500. Once the necessity is extinguished the plaintiffs cannot claim a right of way thereupon the "B" schedule property In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgments reported in 2012 5 LW 649 [Natesa Gounder Vs Raja Gounder and Others], 2009 (3) CTC 442 [ Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and Another and (2001) 3 MLJ 168 [D. Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity, 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.651 of 2020 represented by its Managing Trustee, Saradambal Vs.Dhanasekaran and Others]. He would submit that the lease had come to an end in the year 1989. The plaintiff has entered into possession in his capacity as a lessee. After the termination of the lease at best he is a tenant by holding over. Therefore, there was no question of easement of prescription. Once the defendants have been able to establish an alternate pathway, the plaintiffs cannot insist upon the right of easement of necessity. He would therefore seek to have the second appeal dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

M/S. Kalyan Spinning Mills vs M. Chellappan

13. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the plaintiffs have come to Court with a case of easement of necessity. After Exs.B9 and B10 this right stood extinguished, since the properties purchased under Exs.B9 and B10 abut Sathi Main Road thereby proving that the plaintiff has an alternate pathway to reach the pathway through the property purchased by him in S.No.500. Once the necessity is extinguished the plaintiffs cannot claim a right of way thereupon the "B" schedule property In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgments reported in 2012 5 LW 649 [Natesa Gounder Vs Raja Gounder and Others], 2009 (3) CTC 442 [ Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and Another and (2001) 3 MLJ 168 [D. Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity, represented by its Managing Trustee, Saradambal Vs.Dhanasekaran and 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.651 of 2020 Others]. He would submit that the lease had come to an end in the year 1989. The plaintiff has entered into possession in his capacity as a lessee. After the termination of the lease at best he is a tenant by holding over. Therefore, there was no question of easement of prescription. Once the defendants have been able to establish an alternate pathway, the plaintiffs cannot insist upon the right of easement of necessity. He would therefore seek to have the second appeal dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

M/S. Kalyan Spinning Mills vs M. Chellappan

13. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the plaintiffs have come to Court with a case of easement of necessity. After Exs.B9 and B10 this right stood extinguished, since the properties purchased under Exs.B9 and B10 abut Sathi Main Road thereby proving that the plaintiff has an alternate pathway to reach the pathway through the property purchased by him in S.No.500. Once the necessity is extinguished the plaintiffs cannot claim a right of way thereupon the "B" schedule property In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgments reported in 2012 5 LW 649 [Natesa Gounder Vs Raja Gounder and Others], 2009 (3) CTC 442 [ Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and Another and (2001) 3 MLJ 168 [D. Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity, represented by its Managing Trustee, Saradambal Vs.Dhanasekaran and 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.651 of 2020 Others]. He would submit that the lease had come to an end in the year 1989. The plaintiff has entered into possession in his capacity as a lessee. After the termination of the lease at best he is a tenant by holding over. Therefore, there was no question of easement of prescription. Once the defendants have been able to establish an alternate pathway, the plaintiffs cannot insist upon the right of easement of necessity. He would therefore seek to have the second appeal dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sathya Narayana Nanda on 22 December, 2022

In this regard, the learned counsel would rely upon the following judgments reported in 2005 1 SCC 471 - Justiniano Antao and Ors. Vs. Bernadette B. Pereira, 2009 3 CTC page 442 - Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and Ors , 2008 (1) CTC 137 - N.Boriah Vs. The Nilgiri Co- operative Printing Press & 2009 (1) CTC 753 - Chellam Iyer Vs. J.Ranganathan. He would further submit that the plaintiffs have an alternative pathway and therefore there is no easement of necessity.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Perumalammal vs Ramasamy on 30 June, 2017

In this connection, he relied on a judgment of this Court in Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and another (2009 (3) CTC 442). It is not in dispute that easement by prescription can be acquired only if the claimant had been using the cart track as of right for 10 years in terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1883. Admittedly, Bommi Naicker was the owner of the entire survey No.284. Therefore, there was no need for him to have a separate cart track as detailed in the plaint plan. Subsequently, the defendants have become the owners of the entire property in the year 1964 (Ex.A.1). The admitted case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that they (defendants) have partitioned the property 10 years before the institution of the suit. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff acquired easement by prescription.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - N Authinathan - Full Document
1