court accepted case of
respondent No.1 regarding user of the pathway having width of eight
feet along item No.3 for more than ... width of the pathway passing through item No.2 as three feet.
It is difficult to think a pathway having width
pathway. The first appellant while
resisting the suit, raised a counter claim.
2. According to the first appellant, the pathway has a width ... width of the disputed way as ranging
from 2.15 meters to 2.20 meters. But in Ext. C2(a), the survey
plan width of the pathway
pathway. The first appellant while
resisting the suit, raised a counter claim.
2. According to the first appellant, the pathway has a width ... width of the disputed way as ranging
from 2.15 meters to 2.20 meters. But in Ext. C2(a), the survey
plan width of the pathway
found from the evidence that width of the
pathway is 5 to 6 feet and accordingly granted relief ... detriment to the dominant owner. In this case, confinement
of the pathway having width of 5.5. to 6 feet to any lesser width will
disputed pathway
has not been properly appreciated by the courts below.
3. Ext.A1 states that a pathway having width of 4 feet ... reported that disputed
pathway has no uniform width. Ext.A1 provided width of the pathway
as only 4 feet. In the absence
respondents/defendants have 13 cents. According to the appellant, width of the
disputed pathway is only 6 = links. He constructed compound wall on the west ... resisting the suit made a counter claim. According to them
width of the pathway is not 6 = links as pleaded by the appellant
suit property and from that road
there is a pathway having width of four links going along the south of the suit
property and reaching ... property and going by the contention of appellant, there is a pathway
having width of four links along south of the suit property originating from
appellants, respondents conceded
that they are satisfied with a pathway having width of 3.5
feet. Accordingly right of access was confined to a pathway
having ... accept that since it is specifically
pleaded that the disputed pathway had a width of five feet and
length of 60 feet
approved plan from the Corporation which would disclose the width of the
disputed pathway, that document is not produced. It is also contended ... first
appellate court has modified the decree reducing the width of the disputed
pathway. Going by Exts.A3 and A4 and as admitted
schedule is through the plaint B schedule
described as a pathway having width of 1.20 metres. He alleged
that the 1st respondent attempted to trespass ... respondent contended that there is no such
pathway having width of 1.20 metres towards the west of the
property covered by Ext.B3, assignment
