Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.02 seconds)
Purna Chandra Ghose And Anr. vs Durlav Chandra Ghosh And Ors. on 8 August, 1978 cites

Lakshmidhar Misra vs Rangalal on 20 October, 1949

In support of his contention MRule Mitter first refers to a decision reported in AIR 1950 PC 56 : (54 Cal WN 143) (Lakshmidhar Misra v. Rangalal). In this case it has been held "the true legal basis of such rights lies in custom, and customary right can be claimed only in respect of the inhabitants of a district, and not of the public at large. The custom, if established, makes the local law of the district and it creates a right in each of the inhabitants irrespective of his interest in any particular property". Their Lordships further held that "this is as much the case in India as it would be in England".
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Kuar Sen vs Mamman And Ors. on 10 January, 1895

MRule Bakshi, on the other hand, contends that law in India is different. It is not necessary that in order to prove a customary right it should be proved that the right is being exercised by the persons claiming the same from time immemorial. It is only necessary that the right is ancient and it has been exercised by the persons claiming the same for a long time. In the present case, MRule Bakshi submits that it is in evidence that the inhabitants of the locality exercised such right even prior to 1905. MRule Bakshi refers to a decision reported in (1895) ILR 17 All 87 (Kuar Sen v. Mamman). In this case it was held that "where the local custom excluding or limiting the general rules of law is set up a Court should not decide that it exists unless such Court is satisfied of its reasonableness and its certainty as to extent and application, and is further satisfied by the evidence that the enjoyment of the right was not by leave granted, or by stealth, or by force, and that it had been openly enjoyed for such a length of time as suggests that originally, by agreement or otherwise the usage had become a customary law of the place in respect of the persons and things which it concerned".
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Baba Narayan Lakras vs Saboosa on 15 April, 1943

MRule Bakshi submits that in the present case it has been proved by oral and documentary evidence that the inhabitants of the particular locality exercised the rights which they claimed for a lang time openly and uninterruptedly and as such it must be held that they have acquired a customary right MRule Bakshi next refers to a decision reported in AIR 1943 PC 111 (Baba Narayan Lakras v. Saboosa). It has been held that "it is by no means conclusive against a claim to customary right that the practice should have begun by permission or agreement, but it must be shown to have continued in such circumstances and for such length of time that it has come to be exercised as of right."
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Musammat Subhani vs Nawab on 17 August, 1940

MRule Bakshi also seeks reliance from a case reported in (1941) 68 Ind App 1 (PC) (Musammat Subhani v. Nawab) in support of his contention that it is not necessary to prove that the right has been exercised from time immemorial. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that "having regard to the circumstances under which local customs have arisen, and do arise, in India, both with reference to Muslims and Hindus, and the case and frequency with which people migrate from one district or Province to another, it would, in their Lordships' opinion, create great perplexity in the already uncertain character of customary law to require that, in every case, the antiquity of a custom must be carried back to a period which is beyond the memory of man". After considering the arguments advanc-ed by the learned Advocates for the parties and the principles of law enunciated in the cases referred to above, I am of opinion that in India it is not necessary that it must be proved that the right is being exercised from time immemorial. If it is proved that the right is reasonable, it is ancient and it has been exercised openly and peaceably and without any interference and not stealthily then such a right assumes the character of a customary right and that right can be enforced in a court of law. I cannot accept the submission of MRule Mitter that such a right can be claimed only by all the inhabitants of a district and the same cannot be claimed by by the inhabitants of a particular locality.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - Full Document
1