SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Cal) 16

B.N.MAITRA
HARENDRA NATH CHAKRABORTI – Appellant
Versus
ASIM SINDHU CHAKRABORTY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MAN MOHAN MUKHERJEE, Murari Mohan Mukherji, TARUN CHATTEJEE

B. N. MAITRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit after obtaining the permission of the Court according to the provision of Rule 3 of Order 1 of the Civil P. C. Their allegation is that the C. S. Plot No. 1434/1901 having an area of. 1 decimal has been erroneously recorded in the name of defendant No. J in the R. S. Khatian. It is a public way and it is a part of plot Nos. 1846 and 1424. The disputed way is meant for the use by the public. Plots Nos. 1404, 1424 and 1846 form a public road. It has been shown in the sketch map attached to the plaint. The disputed path is a continuation of the public pathway. Its character has been sought to be changed because it has been made a bata plot. The general public have been using the same from time immemorial and they have acquired customary right and easement of necessity on the principles of lost grant. The defendant No. 1 threatened to obstruct that plot on the 1st Pous, 1379 B. S. The suit is for declaration of easement right and for an injunction.

( 2 ) THE defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' allegations. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the entry in the R. S. Khatian is correct. The disputed property








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top