Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Jayaraman vs Perunayammal on 9 January, 2007 cites

Ayyaswami Gounder And Ors vs Munnuswamy Gounder And Ors on 25 September, 1984

10. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on 99 L.W. 5 (SC) (Ayyaswami Gounder and others Vs. Munnuswamy Gounder and others) and contended that right of co-ownership cannot be restricted to that of the user of the land by a co-owner so as to prejudicially affect or put the other co-owner to a detriment. The leaned counsel would argue that it is not desirable to allow the party to create hurdles in the irrigation of the other parties plot through common channel from their exclusive well. The facts of the said case are as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - R B Misra - Full Document

(Pydimarri Butchi) Venkatarama Sastri ... vs (Suri) Venkatanarasayya And Ors. on 9 August, 1928

The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in AIR 1929 Madras 25 (Venkatarama Sastri & another Vs. Venkatanarasayya and others), wherein the Court held that ownership of water is not independent of ownership of land and one co-owner using water for other land which results in damage to the other sharers, they can sue for damages as well as for injunction to restrain unauthorised use. If a co-owner makes an unauthorised use of property the other co-owner may sue for injunction. The Division Bench further held that immemorial usage must be implied on the agreement that the water of the tank was to be used for the connected wet ayacut only and not for other land. However, this is not the case here. Hence, the Division Bench Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant has no bearing at all."
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1