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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 481

DEVADOSS
Ramasubbier – Appellant
Versus
Shenbagaratnam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The first point is as regards the cornice of the defendants house. The contention in the lower Court was that the defendant was entitled to have the cornice projecting to the extent to which the foundation extended into the lane, The plaintiff is entitled under Ex. A, to a breadth of 19 feet, 3 inches east to west including the site of the lane. According to the commissioners measurement the breadth including the lane is 19 feet, 4 3/4 inches. This difference is owing to the space left by the defendant when the western wall of his house was put up, that is, he left 1 3/4 inches space when he built the wall. That space the defendant is entitled to use for projecting his cornice. The plumb line from the western edge of the cornice down to the ground, is 5 7/8 inches outside the defendants wall. He is entitled to project his cornice to the extent of 3 inches beyond his wall as he has left 1 inches at ground level and the rest at the basement, and anything beyond is an encroachment. The defendant has, therefore, encroached on the plaintiffs land to the extent of 2 7/8 inches.

2. In the lower Court the defendant rested his case on the ground that the foundation ext



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