Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Shri Narinder Kumar Jain vs Shri P.N. Kumar on 4 November, 2011 cites

Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987

On the above parameters if the pleadings filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff are looked into, then it would become amply clear that respondent is talking about easement of necessity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by the LR's Vs. Bishun Narain Intercollege AIR 987 SC1242 has observed that the pleadings should receive a liberal construction and no pedantic or narrow approach should be adopted. Thus, it can be said that the respondent has been able to show that it was a case of easement by necessity and the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant in this context are of no consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 449 - K N Singh - Full Document

Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006

21. The next contention has been that easement of necessity has to be looked into and as the respondent has no other access available except the one which is used as common passage by the respondent and the appellant both for the purpose of maintaining and looking after the sewage and pipe line etc. In addition to that, the respondent is using the common passage to gain access, use and utilise the lofty (miani) situated in his property. Thus, with the aid of judgment in Justiniano Antao (Supra) and Hero Vinoth (Supra), the counsel for the respondent asserted that the legal obligation of the appellant to provide access to the respondent to its lofty as well as water and sewage installations and as there is no other way available for the respondent, therefore, the judgment of the trial court is in accordance with the facts and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 619 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Justiniano Antao & Ors vs Smt. Bernadette B.Pereira on 22 November, 2004

21. The next contention has been that easement of necessity has to be looked into and as the respondent has no other access available except the one which is used as common passage by the respondent and the appellant both for the purpose of maintaining and looking after the sewage and pipe line etc. In addition to that, the respondent is using the common passage to gain access, use and utilise the lofty (miani) situated in his property. Thus, with the aid of judgment in Justiniano Antao (Supra) and Hero Vinoth (Supra), the counsel for the respondent asserted that the legal obligation of the appellant to provide access to the respondent to its lofty as well as water and sewage installations and as there is no other way available for the respondent, therefore, the judgment of the trial court is in accordance with the facts and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 58 - A K Mathur - Full Document
1