Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal...
Checking relevance for Hero Vinoth (Minor) VS Seshammal...
Checking relevance for Madai Lakshmi Alias M. Rajalakshmi VS P. M. Partha Kumar...
Checking relevance for Ramkanya Bai VS Jagdish...
Checking relevance for Sree Swayam Prakash Ashramam VS G. Anandavally Amma...
Checking relevance for Navinchand S/o Tilakchand Shah Vs Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta...
2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 86 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit. The court explicitly states that ''''if a party has easementary right under Section 13 of the Act and also under Section 15 of the Act, it can be claimed simultaneously.'''' This confirms that claims based on easement of necessity (under Section 13) and easement by prescription (under Section 15) are not mutually exclusive and may be raised together in the same legal proceeding.Checking relevance for Marisetti Nageswara Rao S/o Veeraiah VS Lokam Venkateswara Rao (Died)...
2023 0 Supreme(AP) 861 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit, but they must be clearly pleaded and proven as separate claims. The judgment emphasizes that the pleadings necessary for establishing an easement by prescription are different from those for an easement of necessity. A plaintiff seeking relief for an easementary right must specifically plead and prove the nature of the easement, the manner of its acquisition, and the disturbance to the right. The court also notes that a court cannot assume or infer a case of easementary right from stray statements in the pleadings or evidence. Therefore, while both types of easements may be claimed in a single suit, each requires distinct pleadings and evidence, and the plaintiff must clearly assert each claim in the plaint.Checking relevance for Rangasamy VS Palanigounder...
2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 223 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit, but they require distinct pleadings and proofs. The court emphasized that the pleadings necessary to establish an easement by prescription are different from those required for an easement of necessity. For prescription, the plaintiff must plead and prove peaceful, open, and uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years (ending within two years before the suit), and that the right was enjoyed independently of any agreement with the owner. For necessity, the plaintiff must plead that the dominant and servient tenements were originally a single tenement under the same ownership, that there was a severance, and that the easement is essential for the use of the dominant tenement. The court also noted that pleadings for different types of easements (e.g., passage vs. drainage) are distinct, and a court cannot infer an easementary right from vague or stray statements in pleadings. Therefore, while both can be pleaded in one suit, each must be clearly and separately pleaded with the required factual and legal basis.Checking relevance for Dhirajbai W/o Tilakchand Shah VS Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta...
2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 22 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit. The court explicitly states that ''''Section 13 of the Act provides for easements of necessity and quasi-easements, while Section 15 of the Act provides for easements by prescription. In other words, if a party has easementary right under Section 13 of the Act and also under Section 15 of the Act, it can be claimed simultaneously.'''' This confirms that a plaintiff may plead both types of easements in the same legal proceeding.Checking relevance for Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training...
2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2148 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit, but they are distinct legal claims requiring different pleadings and proof. The court emphasized that the pleadings necessary to establish easement by prescription are different from those required for easement of necessity. In this case, the plaintiffs pleaded easement of necessity, and the courts considered it as such, even though the first appellate court erroneously treated the claim as one based on prescription. The court noted that the plaintiffs'''' claim was specifically based on necessity, not prescription, and that the trial court had properly analyzed the claim under the doctrine of necessity. The court also observed that the plaint contained a clear pleading that there was no alternate access to the property except through the ''''B'''' schedule property, which supported the claim of necessity. Therefore, while both claims can be pleaded in one suit, they must be clearly distinguished in pleadings and evidence, and the courts must not misread the nature of the claim.
