Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Latika Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Kakali Das – Respondent
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Title Appeal no. 141 of 2015.
2. Through the said judgment the First Appellate court has passed the following “Hence, Ordered that the defendants are to remove the window shades jutting out on the B schedule property and also remove the open drain as well as opening of pipes from the B schedule property within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, in default the plaintiff/appellant is at liberty to put the decree passed by this Court into execution. No order as to costs. ...”
3. The present lis has been instituted by the respondent No.1 namely Smt. Kakali Das along with her husband the proforma respondent namely Goutam Das who were the plaintiffs in the trial court. The husband and mother of the present appellants herein was the defendant No.1 before the trial court, on his death the present appellants have been substituted. The respondent No. 2 herein that is Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality was the proforma defendant No. 2 while the respondent No. 3 herein namely Biswamohan Datta was the proforma defen
Easement rights to a common passage persist unless formally surrendered; courts require clear evidence of encroachment to uphold claims.
The court confirmed that claims of property encroachment require substantial proof; failure to demonstrate ownership or obstruction by defendants led to dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal.
Courts affirmed the principle that lack of exclusive rights over property precludes unauthorized construction, validating the injunction against encroachment.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and encroachment claims effectively; mere possession does not suffice without credible evidence.
The judgment establishes that a disputed passage is deemed a common passage, rejecting claims of exclusive ownership when the claimant fails to provide adequate evidence of possession.
The court reaffirmed that established ownership through undoubted sale deeds and municipal approvals is paramount, shifting the burden of proof to the defendants when such ownership is claimed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report to determine the extent of encroachment and ownership of the disputed property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence such as the Advocate Commissioner's report, sale-deeds, and the FMB sketch to confirm encroachment and shortage of land, a....
A plaintiff cannot claim easement rights over government land against a defendant without involving the state as an interested party, making such a suit for injunction unmaintainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
