Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Gopal Krishna Sil vs Abdul Samad Chaudhuri And Ors. on 23 August, 1921

Nani Gopal Dutta And Ors. vs Kshitish Chandra Banerjee And Anr. on 26 April, 1949

Bulaiman, C. J., who concurred in the conclusions of Mukherji, j., commented on the view taken by this Court in the case of 'Gopal Krishna Sil v. Abdul Samad', 34 C L J 319. The learned Chief Justice observed that the rule that a prescriptive right would be bad as creating a new species of easement, is not a universal rule. His Lordship added that the rule may vary according to the local conditions; for example a right of cutting wood in Gharwal, or a right of affixing cowdung cakes, or a right of privacy. The learned Chief Justice, however, concurred in holding that the right could be claimed as a customary right.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sm. Panna Banerjee And Ors. vs Kali Kinkor Ganguli on 11 April, 1973

61. The Deed of Sale executed by Srimanta Pandit recites that those two Pals gave away the deity Shiva with the Shiva temple to him. It was not a sale of the said idol not to speak of any shebaiti right. Therefore, it does not establish any custom. The sale by Srimanta Pandit to Sashi Bhusan is a solitary transaction and hence the alleged custom is not proved. Further, the alleged custom, if any, is not even pleaded in the plaint. The Trial Court should have followed the Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sil v. Abdul Samad reported in 34 Cal LJ 319 = (AIR 1921 Cal 569) and should have rejected this alleged custom put forward by Mr. Roy at the time of his argument.
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Maheswar Naik And Ors. vs Tikayet Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo on 8 March, 1949

It would appear that some doubt has been thrown on the correctness of these decisions in the decision of Mukherjee J. in Gopal Krishna v. Abdul Samad, 34 C. L. J. 319 : (A. I. R. (8) 1921 cal 569) (See also Bam Ban Bijaya Prasad Singh v. Abdul Qhani A. I. R. (26) 1989 pat. 682: (185 I. C. 350)). But the doubt expressed is only with reference is the question whether a right of burial can be acquired as a customary right & not whether a section of the inhabitants of a village can acquire a customary right. In* A. I. B. 1927 Mad. 48 (sic) the validity of & customary right in favour of a particular class of villagers has been recognised. Whatever may be the comet view regarding the general question thus raised, it is noteworthy that the Bihar & Orissa Forest Manual, 1917 Edn. vol. I, Part II, p. 68, B. 6 relating to the neighbouring Khurda. Ehasmahal protected forest clearly recognises the right of indigenous tribes of Sahars & Bouris to fell, cut, collect & remove certain specified kinds of forest produce, without any payment for sale, provided the sale is not to unprivileged persons under the rules. Therefore it does appear that so far as this customary right claimed in favour of the aboriginal Sahara is concerned, having regard to local conditions it cannot be held to be unrecognisable in law on the ground that the right is not claimed in respect; of the entire inhabitants of the village, which has been negatived.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kailash Chand And Anr. vs Smt. Gudi And Ors. on 3 August, 1988

8. As far as the right to throw refuse and to use the property for purposes of easing thereon is concerned, it amounts to the claim of a right which is per se a nuisance. Commission of a nuisance on the property of another person cannot be claimed by way of an easementary right. The view aforesaid is almost settled. If precedents are needed, they are in abundance. See Gopal Kirshna Sil v. Abdul Samad Chaudhuri, AIR 1921 Cal 569, Mangat Ram v. Siraj-ul-hasan, AIR 1924 Lah 492, Sheo Raj Chamar v. Mudeer Khan, AIR 1934 All 868, Bherulal v. Mohan Singh, AIR 1966 Raj 123, Bankey Lal v. Krishan Lal, AIR 1967 All 43, Jag Narain v. Ram Dularay, AIR 1979 All 71 and Prabhu.Narain Singh v. Ram Niranjan (deceased by L. Rs.), AIR 1983 All 223.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1