Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.77 seconds)The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Commissioner, Bangalore Dev.Auth.& ... vs Brijesh Reddy & Anr on 8 February, 2013
Moreover, the validity
of acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894
cannot be questioned before the civil court as the civil court
55 OS No.4145/2002
has no jurisdiction to grant such relief as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013)3 SCC 66 (Commissioner,
Bangalore Development Authority and another v. Brijesh
Reddy and another). Therefore, the principles of law laid
down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2009(5)
Kar.L.J. 266 (DB) (Sudha S.Patil V/s State of Karnataka
and another) is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Justiniano Antao & Ors vs Smt. Bernadette B.Pereira on 22 November, 2004
36. A careful perusal of the above decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, it is clear that in
54 OS No.4145/2002
that case the plaintiff had an access on the southern side of
her property, there is no reason why property of other
persons should be permitted to be used for access. Even in
this case also the plaintiff has access to his property
through a road existing towards east and south of the suit
property and such being the case the granting of relief of
easement of necessity does not arise.
O.S. Anchan vs Grace W. Enthat And Ors. on 1 January, 1981
Similarly even the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 1981(1) Kar.L.J. 250
(O.S.Anchan v. Grace.W Enthat and others) is not applicable
to the facts of the case.
Section 13 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
R. Paramasivan And Anr. vs Smt. T. Anasuya on 4 February, 2005
31. Thus, the entire appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that the main
49 OS No.4145/2002
relief claimed by the plaintiff is right to easement set up on
the property of defendant No.3. But, however defendant
No.3 has successfully demonstrated that there is road
towards east and south of the suit property. These
important evidence was elicited in the cross of PW1 and so
also the evidence of Commissioner. Such being the case,
the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit. If the evidence of
Commissioner is carefully read, there is no suggestion that
there is no road lying towards east and south of the suit
property. A perusal of decision of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in ILR 2005 KAR 1188 (R.Paramasivan and
another V/s Smt.T.Anusuya) case referred supra, it is held
as under: