Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Mandakinee Debee vs Basantakumaree Dabee on 7 March, 1933 cites

Saiyid Manzur Hasan vs Saiyid Muhammad Zaman on 13 November, 1924

2. On the facts, as he has found them, the learned Judge states that the suit must fail as the Municipality has not complained and no right of the plaintiff has been violated, inasmuch as sufficient roadway, i.e., 2 feet 8 inches has been left to pass to and from her house, and this is the only right she had over the road. That this is the only right she had over the road is not however correct. The plaintiff complains that she has actually been put to much inconvenience, as no large article can be brought into her house, now that the passage has been narrowed by 10 inches. The plaintiff was certainly entitled to bring such articles into her house along this public roadway which is the only means of entry into the house. The Court of first instance rightly found that the plaintiff's right had been affected by the encroachment, as a member of the public she is entitled to the use of the full width of the passage way;and owing to the situation of her house she is peculiarly affected by the encroachment. Therefore though this is not a case in which C. 1, Rule 8 is applicable, the plaintiff has every right to claim relief, even if it be held (and this has been strenuously urged for the respondent) that no action can be maintained by a member of the public for obstruction of a highway without proof of special damage. That no proof of special damage is necessary appears to be established on the authority of the case of Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman , in which their Lordships of the Privy Council overruled the contrary view held in the case of Satku Kadir v. Ibrahim Aga (1877) 2 Bom 457.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Parthasaradi Ayyangar And Ors. vs Chinnakrishna Ayyanger And Ors. on 1 May, 1882

Their Lordships were dealing with a suit for damages for preventing the plaintiffs from conducting a religious procession along a highway and for a permanent injunction against the defendants, but it seems clear that the same rule is applicable to all cases of obstruction of a highway and, just as in that case and certain Madras cases referred to by their Lordships, Parthasaradi Ayyangar v. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar (1982) 5 Mad 304, Sundram Chetti v. the Queen (1883) 6 Mad 203 (FB) and Sadagopachariar v. A. Rama Rao (1902) 26 Mad 376, it was held that no special damage, other than the obstruction of the procession, was needed, so here I would hold that no special damage is required further than the plaintiff's inability to carry large articles into her house owing to the obstruction. It is however urged for the respondent, that the learned Judge's finding that this is a public passage is contrary to the pleadings, inasmuch as though, at the end of her plaint, the plaintiff prays to be allowed to conduct the suit On behalf of the public, she says the public have no right of egress and ingress over this passage. According to the learned Judge, the plaintiff has all along alleged that it is a public road and the case has proceeded throughout on this basis. It seems that the plaintiff was not sure whether it could be called a public road and pleaded alternatively that, whether it was public or private, her rights had been infringed. The learned Judge definitely finds that it has been claimed by the plaintiff to be and is part of a public road. In these circumstances, I think the finding that it is a public road should be accepted.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Sundram Chetti And Ors. And Ponnusami ... vs The Queen on 9 January, 1883

Their Lordships were dealing with a suit for damages for preventing the plaintiffs from conducting a religious procession along a highway and for a permanent injunction against the defendants, but it seems clear that the same rule is applicable to all cases of obstruction of a highway and, just as in that case and certain Madras cases referred to by their Lordships, Parthasaradi Ayyangar v. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar (1982) 5 Mad 304, Sundram Chetti v. the Queen (1883) 6 Mad 203 (FB) and Sadagopachariar v. A. Rama Rao (1902) 26 Mad 376, it was held that no special damage, other than the obstruction of the procession, was needed, so here I would hold that no special damage is required further than the plaintiff's inability to carry large articles into her house owing to the obstruction. It is however urged for the respondent, that the learned Judge's finding that this is a public passage is contrary to the pleadings, inasmuch as though, at the end of her plaint, the plaintiff prays to be allowed to conduct the suit On behalf of the public, she says the public have no right of egress and ingress over this passage. According to the learned Judge, the plaintiff has all along alleged that it is a public road and the case has proceeded throughout on this basis. It seems that the plaintiff was not sure whether it could be called a public road and pleaded alternatively that, whether it was public or private, her rights had been infringed. The learned Judge definitely finds that it has been claimed by the plaintiff to be and is part of a public road. In these circumstances, I think the finding that it is a public road should be accepted.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1