Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
Perumalammal vs Ramasamy on 30 June, 2017 cites

Arangasamy vs Valarmathy on 3 April, 2009

In this connection, he relied on a judgment of this Court in Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and another (2009 (3) CTC 442). It is not in dispute that easement by prescription can be acquired only if the claimant had been using the cart track as of right for 10 years in terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1883. Admittedly, Bommi Naicker was the owner of the entire survey No.284. Therefore, there was no need for him to have a separate cart track as detailed in the plaint plan. Subsequently, the defendants have become the owners of the entire property in the year 1964 (Ex.A.1). The admitted case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that they (defendants) have partitioned the property 10 years before the institution of the suit. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff acquired easement by prescription.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Ramasami vs Krishnasami Alias Krishnan And Ors. on 27 February, 1996

21.In the light of the ratio laid down by the said decision, much reliance cannot be placed on Exs.C.1 and C.2. Admittedly, the adjoining field on the western side of the suit properties belongs to the plaintiff, as could be seen from the description of the properties in the schedule to the plaint at hand. The land on the western side is contiguous to the suit properties. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff can have access to the suit properties through his land lying to the west of the suit properties and contiguous to it. The plaintiff in his evidence as P.W.1 would admit that the village, in which, he resides, is lying to the west of the suit properties. In these circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff can have access through his own field lying to the west of the suit properties and there cannot be an easement of necessity over the properties of the defendants. I, therefore, hold that no easement of necessity has been proved. As it is made clear that the plaintiff has an alternative way to reach the suit second item, no decree as prayed for by the plaintiff can be granted. The findings of the first appellate court are not supported by evidence. Therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1