Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Jootoor Acchanna
Versus
Vanamala Venkamma
Decided On : 2 November, 1894
Easement - Government Poramboke - Plaintiff entitled to injunction based on enjoyment
Fact of the Case:
The District Judge found that the land where the defendant attempted to build a wall is Government poramboke, not belonging to the defendant, and lies between the plaintiff's house and the public street.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction without needing to establish prescriptive rights of easement against the defendant, as the mere fact of plaintiff's enjoyment was sufficient.
Issues: Ownership of the land, entitlement to injunction, prescriptive rights of easement
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the plaintiff's enjoyment of the land was sufficient to entitle him to an injunction, without the need to establish prescriptive rights of easement against the defendant.
Final Decision: The Decree of the District Judge was confirmed, and the Second Appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. The District Judge has found that the strip of land on which defendant has been attempting to build a wall is a piece of Government poramboke between plaintiffs house and the public street and that it does not belong to defendant stall, Such being the case we think the judge was right in holding that it was not necessary for plaintiff to establish prescriptive rights of easement against a wrong-doer and that the mere fact of plaintiffs enjoyment is sufficient to entitle him to an injunction. See Jeffries v. Williams L.R. 5 Ex. 792 Goddard on Easements, 4th Ed. 467.
2. The Decree of the District Judge is confirmed and this Second Appeal dismissed with costs.
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
