Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Goli Paddayya And Ors. vs Chaliki Krishnamurthy on 31 January, 1927 cites

Palaniandi Tevan And Ors. vs Puthirangonda Nadan And Ors. on 21 October, 1897

In Palaniandi Tevan v. Puthirangonda Nadan (1857) ILR 20 M 389. it was held that no fixed period of enjoyment is necessary in law to establish a customary right to user may exist apart from a dominant heritage. In this case all the residents of a particular Village except the Neechars or Pariahs and Pallars had been using the water of a well and it was held that the plaintiffs by possessing houses and becoming residents had acquired a right of easement to use the water of the well. This seems to be a sufficient answer to this question which as I have said has now been raised for the first time. I agree with my learned brother that the Letters Patent Appeal must be allowed and the decree of the 1st Subordinate Judge restored. I agree with my brother with rgard to his order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Orr And Ors. vs Raman Chettu And Ors. on 1 May, 1895

On the other hand the observations of Shephard and Best, JJ., in Orr v. Raman Chetti support the appellant. Though the point was not expressly raised or argued there on principle I do not think there is any reason why in India there may not be customary rights for certain streets in a town or village or for certain portions of a town or village. It may be added that this point was not raised in the three Courts before and is newly raised here. In the result I am of opinion that there is no ground made out in second appeal for rejecting the finding of the Subordinate Judge and for sending the case down for a fresh finding. I am of opinion that the Letters Patent Appeal should be allowed. Accordingly I would reverse the judgment of Phillips, J., and restore that of the Subordinate judge with costs here and in the Court below.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1