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

1908 Supreme(Mad) 180

WALLIS, MILLER
Varadaya Shetti – Appellant
Versus
Tyampa Shetti – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The finding is that the plaintiff has boon in. enjoyment of the right for at least forty years, which the Judge says may be called immemorial right. We think that he means to find that enjoyment must be referred to a legal origin. It is, therefore, unnecessary for the plaintiff to rely on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.

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