AI Overview...
-
Claiming a Common Passage - Main Points and Insights
-
Existence and Evidence: Courts have emphasized the importance of proving the existence and use of a common passage. For instance, in S. MADAIAH VS SIDDANAIKA - Karnataka, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence and user of the alleged common passage, leading to rejection of the claim. Similarly, in Jang Singh VS Harjit Kaur - Punjab and Haryana, the court rejected the claim because the area was exclusively allotted and lacked evidence of a common passage.
-
Legal Principles: Under Hindu Law, a passage or road for ingress and egress is considered indivisible, and cannot be partitioned (RAGHUNATH BARDHAN VS BISWANATH BARDHAN - Orissa). Claims for partition of such passages are generally not upheld unless clear evidence of shared use and rights is established (Y. Robinson vs Daniel Joseph (late) S/o. Late John Daniel - Madras).
-
Procedural Aspects: Amendments to pleadings can alter claims regarding common passages, as seen in PRIKSHAT MEHDUDIA VS D. D. BHARDWAJ - Himachal Pradesh, where changes in the claim's scope were noted. Proper framing of the claim and adherence to procedural rules are crucial.
-
Ownership and Rights: The defendant's right over a common passage must be supported by evidence. In SUNIL KUMAR BASU VS DWINJENDRA NATH MITRA - Calcutta, the defendant lacked proof of right over the passage, leading to a denial of his claim. Conversely, claims based on established rights, such as easements, require satisfying legal prerequisites (Y. Robinson vs Daniel Joseph (late) S/o. Late John Daniel - Madras).
-
Disputes and Court Findings: Courts scrutinize claims of common passage, especially when disputes involve encroachments or alterations. For example, in Ram Awatar Goenka S/o. Late Nathmal Goenka VS Gauhati Municipal Corporation Rep. by Its Commissioner - Gauhati, the court opined that if a common passage is not shown in approved building plans, rights over it may be questionable. In cases where defendants claim exclusive rights, courts demand concrete evidence (S.PANNEER SELVAM vs M.ABDUL AJEEZ - Madras).
-
Analysis and Conclusion
-
To successfully claim a common passage, the claimant must demonstrate its existence, continuous use, and legal right to use it, supported by evidence such as usage history, property plans, or legal rights like easements. Merely asserting a right without proof is insufficient, often resulting in rejection. Courts uphold the indivisibility of passages under Hindu Law and require clear, admissible evidence to establish rights over such land. Procedural correctness, including proper pleadings and amendments, is also vital. When disputes arise, courts tend to favor well-supported claims, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof to claim or defend rights over common passages.
References:
- Jang Singh VS Harjit Kaur - Punjab and Haryana
- PRIKSHAT MEHDUDIA VS D. D. BHARDWAJ - Himachal Pradesh
- S. MADAIAH VS SIDDANAIKA - Karnataka
- Ahmed Ali Saheb VS Thammanna Gowda - Karnataka
- Ram Awatar Goenka S/o. Late Nathmal Goenka VS Gauhati Municipal Corporation Rep. by Its Commissioner - Gauhati
- SUNIL KUMAR BASU VS DWINJENDRA NATH MITRA - Calcutta
- RAGHUNATH BARDHAN VS BISWANATH BARDHAN - Orissa
- W. B. INDUSTRIAL INFRA-STRICTIRE DEVELOPMENT CORPN. VS M/S. STAR ENGINEERING CO. - Calcutta
- Y. Robinson vs Daniel Joseph (late) S/o. Late John Daniel - Madras
- S.PANNEER SELVAM vs M.ABDUL AJEEZ - Madras
Search Results for "How to Claim Common Passage"
2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 631 • India - Punjab and Haryana
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
The plaintiff's claim for a common passage after partition was rejected as the area in question had been exclusively allotted to ... The court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the existence of a common passage and could not claim any right ... The plaintiff's claim for a common passage after partition was rejected as the area in question had been exclusively allotted to ... There is no common#HL_....
1999 0 Supreme(HP) 110 • India - Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment sought to the plaint would result in change of claim of common passage, ... was framed and the interim order for injunction was for common passage comprising in Khasra Nos. 297 and 274 whereas by the proposed amendment claim for common passage comprising in Khasra Nos. 273, 274, 277, 284, 288, 297 and 309 is intended to be made. ... order for injunction was passed for common #....
1995 0 Supreme(Kar) 416 • India - Karnataka
H.N.TILHARI
for a common passage and the defendant's alleged encroachment. ... The lower appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence and use of the common passage, and also noted the ... Fact of the Case: The plaintiff sought a decree for declaration of a common passage and permanent injunction against ... user of that land as common passage. ... Plaintiff claimed that, the said land was being used by the plain tiff-appellant and def....
2012 0 Supreme(Kar) 1086 • India - Karnataka
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
, based on the lack of evidence supporting the defendant's claim of a common passage. ... and is not a common passage. ... Issues: The main issue was whether the disputed space was a common passage or an exclusive space of the plaintiff. ... The sum and substance of the case of the defendant is that 3 feet width passage lying between the house of the plaintiff and the defendant is a common passage for the plaintif....
2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 917 • India - Gauhati
DEVASHIS BARUAH
& 5 or third party upon whom rights may be created, may at later stage claim rights over common passage as a part of land of respondent ... Para 11 Finding of the court: If common passage is not shown in approved building plan, respondent Nos.3, 4 ... Nos.3, 4 & 5 - Further apprehension of petitioners is that if the said common passage is not shown in approved plan, then at a later ... It is the opinion of this Court that if the common pass....
1995 0 Supreme(Cal) 429 • India - Calcutta
BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI
The defendant did not have a right of passage over the common passage as there was no evidence to support his claim. ... as he had no right of passage over the common passage. ... Whether the defendant had a right of passage over the common passage? 3. ... On the other hand, it was claimed that the common passage is the 'bustee passage' over which he has a right....
2003 0 Supreme(Ori) 487 • India - Orissa
A.S.NAIDU
The rule of Hindu Law regarding indivisible property applies, and the plaintiff cannot claim partition of the common passage. ... Plaintiff sought partition of the strip, while defendant argued for its retention as a common passage. ... Ratio Decidendi: Under Hindu Law, a passage or common road for ingress and egress is indivisible. ... Consequently, it can be safely held that the common passage has not lost its characteristic alto....
1986 0 Supreme(Cal) 314 • India - Calcutta
PRATIBHA BONNERJEA
Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining a claim for a common passage, as it was also excluded by the contract. 6. ... Whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by awarding interest without a claim being made in the statement of facts. ... liability - Non-speaking award - Mistake of facts - Non-application of mind - Misconduct of arbitrator - Interest on awarded sum - Claim ... The other claim for idle labour was for Rs. 4,50,000/- and claim for c....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65084 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Property law - The plaintiff sought a declaration to claim rights over a common passage ... Paras 1-19) ... ... (B) Easement Rights - Establishment of prerequistes for claiming rights over passage ... (C) Mistaken Identity and Title Claims - The appellants purchased property based on incorrect boundary descriptions, yet cannot claim ... The property measuring about 45' x 4' i.e., 180 sq. ft. was used as a common passage left ....
• India - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim and contended that the common passage belonged only to them and that the plaintiff had ... in the common passage. ... much less the common passage? ... common passage? ... When doing maintenance work, they had demolished the roof of bathroom in “F” Schedule Property and raised the level of the common passage. The drainage of the plaintiff is in the #HL_....
Filter by Legal Phrase
