Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal...
2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1421 : The court held that a plaintiff may file a suit claiming a 3-foot common passage without pleading an easementary right, as long as the claim is based on title and possession. However, if the plaintiff does not plead an easementary right, the court cannot convert a suit for title into a suit for enforcement of an easementary right. The court emphasized that the pleadings for title and easement are different, and a claim for easement must be specifically pleaded. In this case, the plaintiffs did not plead an easementary right as an alternative, and thus the High Court erred in treating the suit as one for easement. The court further noted that a right of easement can only be declared when the servient owner is a party to the suit, and the court could not grant such relief when the defendants were not recognized as owners of the property. Therefore, while a plaintiff may claim a common passage without pleading an easement, the absence of such a pleading prevents the court from recognizing or enforcing an easementary right.Checking relevance for Sree Swayam Prakash Ashramam VS G. Anandavally Amma...
2010 1 Supreme 23 : The court held that it was permissible for the plaintiff to file suit claiming a 3-foot common passage (easement) without expressly pleading an easementary right, as the Trial Court was justified in finding that the right of easement by way of grant could be inferred from the circumstances, including the long-standing use of the pathway and the absence of objection by the defendants until 1982. The court emphasized that such pleadings were not necessary when they did not affect the finding of fact regarding the easement by way of grant, and the High Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact that there was an implied grant of the ''''B'''' schedule property as a pathway, which could be inferred from the circumstances, including the lack of alternative access and acquiescence in the plaintiff’s use of the pathway.Checking relevance for Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ...
2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688 : The legal documents establish that a plaintiff may claim a right of passage based on an easementary right even if not explicitly pleaded, provided the evidence supports such a claim. In the case cited, the High Court granted a permanent injunction for ''''right of passage'''' despite the absence of a pleading or issue on easementary right, relying on the fact that the plaintiffs and their vendor had been using the property and the first defendant and DW 6 admitted such user. However, the Supreme Court held this approach to be procedurally flawed, emphasizing that courts cannot decide issues not raised in pleadings or grant relief not claimed. The court reiterated that no amount of evidence can be considered on a plea not put forward in the pleadings, and a court cannot make out a case not pleaded. Thus, while the factual situation (claiming 3 feet common passage without pleading an easementary right) is addressed, the documents clarify that such a claim may be considered only if the evidence clearly establishes it, but the procedural validity of doing so is questionable under established civil procedure rules.Checking relevance for Ramkanya Bai VS Jagdish...
Checking relevance for Umrah Khatoon VS Mohd. Zafir Khan...
Checking relevance for K. Krishnamoorthy VS Nagammal...
2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4540 : The court held that the plaintiff''''s suit, which sought a declaration of entitlement to use a common pathway for engress and ingress and a mandatory injunction to remove an obstruction, was based solely on a claim of ownership and trespass, not on an easementary right. The plaint did not plead, even as an alternative, an easementary right of passage over the schedule property. The court emphasized that the facts required to establish title are different from those needed to establish an easementary right, and that a plaintiff seeking relief based on an easementary right must specifically plead and prove the nature, acquisition, and disturbance of such right. Therefore, filing a suit based on a claim of 3 feet common passage without pleading an easementary right is permissible only if the claim is grounded in ownership and trespass, not as an alternative or additional basis for an easement.Checking relevance for Jasmine Ennasi VS Thaiyalnayagi Ammal...
2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1393 : The court held that the plaintiff''''s claim for an easementary right based on a ''''common passage'''' mentioned in the sale deed is valid, and that the right of passage can be presumed as an easement by grant. The trial court found that the words ''''common passage'''' in the sale deed were intended to make the passage available to both the owners of the front and back portions, thereby establishing an easementary right. The court further ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to an easementary right over the pathway, and that the defendant''''s construction reducing the lane width by 3 feet 3 inches interferes with the plaintiff''''s peaceful enjoyment of this right. This confirms that pleading a claim for a 3-foot common passage without explicitly pleading an easementary right is permissible, as the existence of such a right can be inferred from the terms of the sale deed and the continuous enjoyment of the passage.
