Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL
Ramaiyan (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Santhakumari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims easementary right to water. (Para 3) |
| 2. defendants deny existence of the kanni. (Para 4) |
| 3. trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff based on evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. appellants argue against the validity of prior orders denying easement. (Para 8) |
| 5. arguments presented by both parties regarding easement rights. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court analyzes evidence and establishes easement rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. plaintiff's easement right affirmed. (Para 19) |
| 8. second appeal dismissed; lower court judgment affirmed. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated December 11, 2014 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2011 by the 'Subordinate Court, Mannargudi' [‘First Appellate Court' for brevity] confirming the Judgment and Decree dated January 28, 2011 passed in O.S.No. 68 of 2006 by the 'District Munsif Court, Mannargudi' ['Trial Court' for brevity].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
Case of the Plaintiff:
3. The plaintiff has filed the Suit seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff has got customary easem
The court affirmed the customary easementary rights of the plaintiff to draw water through the Suit Property, as supported by statutory provisions and lack of evidence from defendants to refute this ....
The court affirmed the plaintiff's customary easementary rights to draw water through the Suit Property, rejecting the defendants' claims of obstruction.
Easements of necessity require clear proof of their existence and use; mere historical claims without current substantiation are insufficient.
A plaintiff seeking an injunction must establish a legal right over the property in question, particularly in cases involving government-held land and easement rights.
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific pleading and evidence to establish easementary rights, the burden of proof in establishing such rights, and the court's r....
Point of Law : Easementary right – The right of every owner of upper land that water naturally rising, or falling on such land, and not passing in defined channels, shall be allowed by the owner of a....
The plaintiff's claim of easementary right was not maintainable as he failed to seek the relief of declaration despite the denial of his right by the defendants.
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
