Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)Section 15 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Smt. Anguri & Ors vs Jiwan Dass & Anr on 30 August, 1988
Mr. Jandhyala, the learned advocate for the appellant, on the other hand has relied upon a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Anguri v. Jiwan Dass, to postulate that having due regard to the implication of Section 15 of the Easements Act, 1882, the right of privacy should be pleaded and proved and even then, if one party opens windows, it is equally open to another party to block them by raising walls.
Syed Habib Hussain And Ors. vs Kamal Chand on 24 April, 1968
On the basis of which, such a custom is peculiar to a town whereby the owner or occupier of a house cannot open a new window so as to substantially invade the neighbour's privacy. That requires a clear plea and proof. It can be popularly called as 'local custom'. As already indicated above, there is no such plea by the defendant. The law is so certain that the right of privacy is a customary right not attached to any individual person but to the 'locality'. But, it can be proved by particular instances in which such right was claimed, recognised or exercised. In cases of well known customs the Court can take even judicial notice. (See Syed Habib Hussain v. Kamal Chand, . This is a clear case of individuals pleading right of privacy and that is not available to them.
Prabhavati Devi And Ors. vs Mahendra Narain Singh And Ors. on 1 August, 1980
Similar is the view taken by the High Court of Patna in Prabhavati Devi v. Mahendranarain Singh, and our own High Court in Pasitpuleti
Krishnamurihi v. Annadasu Bapanayya, 1956, An.W.R. 719. The Courts below have not dealt with this question in the light of the settled law. In the absence of clear pleading and proof in support of right of privacy by the plaintiffs, such a right has been held to be established to grant the reliefs unjustifiably.
1