Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.79 seconds)
Mangal Dubey Memorial Education ... vs Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukl University 27 ... on 20 May, 2020 cites

Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006

16. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the settled legal position qua the easementary rights claimed under Section 8 of the Indian Easement Act, it is quite vivid that in the plaint filed before the trial Court that the Plaintiff/Appellant only pleaded that the suit pathway is being used by the Plaintiff/Appellant for the purpose of school since 1998 and he did not pay any amount for using it from 1998- 2002 and in the year 2002, Executive Council resolved for payment of Rs.10,000/- per annum payable to Defendant No.1 and which was directed to be paid by Defendant No.3 to the Plaintiff and on 25-2-2003 which he (plaintiff) paid for the year 2002-2003, 2003- 2004 & 2004-2005 @ Rs. 10,000/- per annum, but thereafter, when the Plaintiff sought to make payment for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, it was returned by Defendant No.2 without reasonable basis and thereafter, the defendants started interfering with their possession by raising construction. The aforesaid pleading would clearly show that there was no specific pleading of easement under 5 AIR 1953 Nagpur 205 9 Section 8 of the Indian Easement Act by the plaintiff except use of suit pathway from the year 1998 to 2002 and thereafter, it was being used with the leave of the Defendants which the Defendants have refuted as such, there is no pleading at all based on Section 8 of the Indian Easement Act and further, there is no evidence at all on record. Even otherwise, for want of necessary pleading and evidence based on Section 8 of the Indian Easement Act, the trial Court has rightly held that the Plaintiff is not entitled for decree for declaration and permanent injunction and the first Appellate Court has rightly affirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court and consequently the decision relied upon in Hero Vinoth (Minor) (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 619 - A Pasayat - Full Document

P. Govindarajulu Chettiar vs V.N. Srinivasalu Naidu on 23 July, 1971

Kasim Khaleeli2 has held that in absence of any express grant of easement does not negative an implied grant of such easement. The Madras High Court further in the matter of K. Govindarajulu Chettiar v. V.N. Srinivasalu Naidu 3 relying upon Ratanchand (supra) clearly held that the question whether a grant can be implied or not would only arise where there is no express grant. It is from the attendant circumstances and other documentary evidence that an implied grant has to be inferred.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1