Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
R. Madhavan – Appellant
Versus
Karunanithi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree dated 23.10.2013 made in A.S.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur, Vellore District, modifying the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 made in O.S.No.156 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppattur, Vellore District.)
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the Second Appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property contains totally 7 items of properties and item Nos.1 to 5 absolutely belong to the 1st plaintiff and item Nos. 6 and 7 absolutely belong to the 2nd plaintiff. The further case of the plaintiffs is that in order to conveniently enjoy their properties and for their proper access from Tirupattur-Salem Highways, they purchased Survey Nos. 494/3 and 494/1C through a registered Sale Deed dated 22.01.1990, marked as Ex.A1, from one Lalithammal, Kalaivani and Santhammal. These two properties have been shown as item Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule. It is being used as cart track to access the other properties. Thereby, the plaintiffs are claiming title, ownership and possession of all the suit properties exclusively. They also
Interpretation of Will and Sale Deeds to determine the right to use the common cart track.
The burden of proof lies with the party making a specific claim, and the court will analyze the evidence presented to establish the truth of the claim.
A prescriptive easement right is established through clear evidence of continuous, long-standing usage by the claimant and their predecessors, documented in historical title deeds, unaffected by the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear title and acceptable evidence to support claims of possession and easementary rights.
The court affirmed that plaintiffs possess easementary rights over a common Cart Track, while the defendants' claims of absolute ownership were unsupported by evidence.
The court affirmed that the plaintiffs possess a right of easement of necessity over a cart track essential for accessing their agricultural lands, with no evidence of alternative routes.
The necessity of seeking a declaration of right when claiming a pathway right in a property belonging to another party.
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
