Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Natesa Gounder vs Raja Gounder on 1 October, 2012
In the judgment cited by the respondents reported in 2012-5-LW 649
[Natesa Gounder Vs. Raja Gounder and Others], the Bench was
considering whether the concept of "easement of necessity by implied grant"
Section 15 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Arangasamy vs Valarmathy on 3 April, 2009
13. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for
Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that
the plaintiffs have come to Court with a case of easement of necessity. After
Exs.B9 and B10 this right stood extinguished, since the properties
purchased under Exs.B9 and B10 abut Sathi Main Road thereby proving
that the plaintiff has an alternate pathway to reach the pathway through the
property purchased by him in S.No.500. Once the necessity is extinguished
the plaintiffs cannot claim a right of way thereupon the "B" schedule
property In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel would rely
upon the judgments reported in 2012 5 LW 649 [Natesa Gounder Vs Raja
Gounder and Others], 2009 (3) CTC 442 [ Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy
and Another and (2001) 3 MLJ 168 [D. Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity,
15/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.651 of 2020
represented by its Managing Trustee, Saradambal Vs.Dhanasekaran and
Others]. He would submit that the lease had come to an end in the year
1989. The plaintiff has entered into possession in his capacity as a lessee.
After the termination of the lease at best he is a tenant by holding over.
Therefore, there was no question of easement of prescription. Once the
defendants have been able to establish an alternate pathway, the plaintiffs
cannot insist upon the right of easement of necessity. He would therefore
seek to have the second appeal dismissed.
1