Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Section 8 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Nagarathna Mudaliar vs Sami Pillai And Anr. on 19 December, 1935
9. On this contention being raised by Mr. Pandey, Mr. Sanghi for the plaintifi submitted an application for amendment of the plaint by seeking alternatively to have his claim on a right acquired by long and immemorial user. Mr. Sanghi then relied upon the pleadings as they stood and contended that on those pleadings themselves the case of presumption of lost grant can be drawn from long and immemorial user. Such user may be in the nature of easement but its mode of acquisition is not by prescription. He suggested that all that the plaintiff alleged in the plaint was that the way had been used by his ancestors for over 50 or 60 years as of right and this did not exclude the case of acquisition by mode different from that mentioned in Section 15 of the Easements Act. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Maharani Rajroop Koer v. Abdul Hossein, 7 Ind App 240 (PC), Manmatha Nath v. Rakhal Chandra, AIR 1933 Cal 215, Nagarethna Mudaliar v. Sami Pillai, AIR 1936 Mad 682 (684-86), Radha Kishun v. Sunder Mal, AIR 1934 Pat II and Sheo Raj v. Mudeer Khan, AIR 1934 All 868 in support of his contention.
Article 34 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Section 27 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Madan Mohan Chakravarty And Ors. vs Sashi Bhusan Mukherji And Ors. on 25 April, 1913
8. In this second appeal Mr. Pandey for the defendant-appellant contended that the claim of the plaintiff is based on the acquisition of the right of way by prescription. The Courts below
seemed to be cf the view that the use of the way
as of right, without interruption for 20 years and its continuance within 2 years next before the institution of the suit was sufficient to enable the plaintifi to succeed. But, according to the learned counsel, since the right relates tq the user in respect of the land belonging to Government, user for a period of 20 years is not enough. It ought to be established that such user was for over 60 years. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported a Chinnasami v. Balasundara, AIR 1934 Mad 575, Madan Mohan v. Sashi Bhusan, AIR 1915 Cal 403 and Chotey v. Dal Chand, AIR 1929 All 862 in support of his contention.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Rajrup Koer vs Abul Hossein And Ors. on 14 July, 1880
9. On this contention being raised by Mr. Pandey, Mr. Sanghi for the plaintifi submitted an application for amendment of the plaint by seeking alternatively to have his claim on a right acquired by long and immemorial user. Mr. Sanghi then relied upon the pleadings as they stood and contended that on those pleadings themselves the case of presumption of lost grant can be drawn from long and immemorial user. Such user may be in the nature of easement but its mode of acquisition is not by prescription. He suggested that all that the plaintiff alleged in the plaint was that the way had been used by his ancestors for over 50 or 60 years as of right and this did not exclude the case of acquisition by mode different from that mentioned in Section 15 of the Easements Act. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Maharani Rajroop Koer v. Abdul Hossein, 7 Ind App 240 (PC), Manmatha Nath v. Rakhal Chandra, AIR 1933 Cal 215, Nagarethna Mudaliar v. Sami Pillai, AIR 1936 Mad 682 (684-86), Radha Kishun v. Sunder Mal, AIR 1934 Pat II and Sheo Raj v. Mudeer Khan, AIR 1934 All 868 in support of his contention.
Chinnasami Goundan vs A.S. Balasundara Mudaliar And Ors. on 9 April, 1934
8. In this second appeal Mr. Pandey for the defendant-appellant contended that the claim of the plaintiff is based on the acquisition of the right of way by prescription. The Courts below
seemed to be cf the view that the use of the way
as of right, without interruption for 20 years and its continuance within 2 years next before the institution of the suit was sufficient to enable the plaintifi to succeed. But, according to the learned counsel, since the right relates tq the user in respect of the land belonging to Government, user for a period of 20 years is not enough. It ought to be established that such user was for over 60 years. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported a Chinnasami v. Balasundara, AIR 1934 Mad 575, Madan Mohan v. Sashi Bhusan, AIR 1915 Cal 403 and Chotey v. Dal Chand, AIR 1929 All 862 in support of his contention.