Back
1908 Supreme(Mad) 180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wallis and Miller, JJ.
Varadaya Shetti
Versus
Tyampa Shetti and Ors.
Decided On : 13.11.1908
The plaintiff's immemorial right of enjoyment does not require reliance on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act.
Headnote:
Immemorial Right - Easement - The plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the right for at least forty years, which the Judge says may be called immemorial right. The plaintiff does not need to rely on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the right for at least forty years, which the Judge says may be called immemorial right.
Finding of the Court:
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.
Issues: The plaintiff's right of enjoyment for at least forty years, immemorial right, and reliance on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff does not need to rely on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act as the enjoyment must be referred to a legal origin.
Final Decision: The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.
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.
