Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
Dharnidhar Sahu And Ors. vs Bhagirathi Sahu And Ors. on 7 October, 1955 cites

Henry Hill And Co. (Turkaulia) Ltd. And ... vs Sheoraj Rai And Ors. on 25 November, 1921

The above principle has been recognised in 'Abdul Baqi v. Sheo Prakash Singh', AIR 1928 Pat 279 (E); 'Henry Hill and Co. v. Sheraj Rai', AIR 1922 Pat 9 (P) and 'Mahabir Sahu v. Ram Saran Sahu', AIR 1918 Pat 493 (G). The chief characteristic of surface water is that its identity and existence as a water body cannot be definitely ascertained and it cannot be said to belong to any particular person. No claim can, therefore be made to such right either as a natural right or as an easement by prescription. The right to the ownership of the water is an incident to the ownership of the land.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

V. Adinarayana vs P. Ramudu Alias Ramaswamy And Three Ors. on 19 November, 1912

No proprietor can make a claim to the water in such a condition before it arrives within his own borders. So long as the water rises naturally and squanders itself over the surface it has no public character and before it arrives at any defined natural channel, it belongs solely to the owner of the land which it covers, & he may deal with it exactly as he thinks fit While he is making a reasonable use of his own land. See 'V. Adinarayana v. Ramudu', AIR 1914 Mad 507 (J)..
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mt. Srimati vs Sahu Nand Kishore on 12 March, 1930

In Mt. Sarban v. Phudo Sahu', AIR 1923 Pat 65 (D) the plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive right to irrigate their lands from the surface water flowing from the defendants' field which had been bunded up. It was held that the owner of the servient tenement cannot compel the owner of the dominant tenement to use the water in a particular way or to compel him not to interfere with the surface water accumulating on the land, even if its exercise should be for the benefit of the servient owner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sheikh Abdul Baqi vs Sheo Prakash Singh And Ors. on 8 December, 1927

The above principle has been recognised in 'Abdul Baqi v. Sheo Prakash Singh', AIR 1928 Pat 279 (E); 'Henry Hill and Co. v. Sheraj Rai', AIR 1922 Pat 9 (P) and 'Mahabir Sahu v. Ram Saran Sahu', AIR 1918 Pat 493 (G). The chief characteristic of surface water is that its identity and existence as a water body cannot be definitely ascertained and it cannot be said to belong to any particular person. No claim can, therefore be made to such right either as a natural right or as an easement by prescription. The right to the ownership of the water is an incident to the ownership of the land.
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1