AI Overview...
- Right of Party Extinction upon Building New Wall - The sources do not explicitly address whether constructing a new wall extinguishes a party's rights. However, relevant points include:
- Erection of Structures and Possession: Erecting walls or structures on land is deemed as occupation of that land (01500037308). Such acts can impact rights related to possession and ownership.
- Illegal Construction and Rights: Courts recognize that illegal constructions can affect a person's enjoyment of property and may give rise to legal actions (00900004414). The right to build must conform to statutory rules.
- Easements and Light and Air Rights: Interference with easementary rights, such as light and air, can lead to legal objections, but constructing a new wall may not automatically extinguish existing rights unless it constitutes an illegal or unlawful act (02100094866).
- Limitations and Extinguishment of Rights: If a right to possession or property is barred by law of limitation, it results in extinguishing the title or right (IND_HC_KLHC010313492006, 01500037308). Building after such a period may not revive or preserve rights.
- Legal Principles and Jurisdiction:
- Res-judicata and Previous Judgments: Past judgments may bar subsequent claims related to the same land or rights (01100052094). Building a new wall does not necessarily affect the finality of such judgments unless it constitutes a new act of unlawful interference.
- Ownership and Title: Courts have held that possession and ownership rights are protected unless law provides otherwise. Building a new wall does not automatically extinguish ownership rights unless it is unlawful or contrary to existing orders or rights (00300019686).
- Analysis and Conclusion:
- The right of a party is generally not automatically extinguished solely by the construction of a new wall unless the act is illegal, violates easements, or is done in breach of court orders or statutory provisions.
- If the construction is lawful and does not interfere with existing rights, the original rights may persist.
- Conversely, unlawful or unauthorized construction can lead to legal actions that may result in the extinguishment or modification of rights.
References: - 01500037308, 00900004414, 02100094866, IND_HC_KLHC010313492006, 01100052094, 00300019686
Search Results for "Whether the Right of the Party is Extingushed if the Defendant Build New Wall"
2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 359 • India - Madras
years causing hardship to plaintiff- Whether this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the reliefs sought for ... general power of attorney was executed by plaintiff in favor of first defendant - Defendants orally agreed to pay sum as security ... and handed over title documents in original - Asbestos sheet shed and 5 feet compound wall was demolished to put up apartment consisting ... (4) Whether the defendants are liable to handover the original sale deed dated ....
2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3990 • India - Delhi
NAJMI WAZIRI
The defendant argued that the suit was barred by res-judicata due to a previous Supreme Court judgment that held the plot did not ... Deed limited the plaintiff's entitlement to a refund if the Municipal Corporation did not sanction the plot, extinguishing any right ... Deed limited the plaintiff's entitlement to a refund if the Municipal Corporation did not sanction the plot, extinguishing any right ... The issue to be determined is whether there exists any plot of land bearing No. E-25 (New), Category....
1964 0 Supreme(Cal) 47 • India - Calcutta
A.N.RAY
right to or enjoyment of the property is materially affected by the defendant's illegal construction. * The defendant owes a duty ... to insist that the defendant construct the building in accordance with the rules and not to violate the same. * The plaintiff's ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had a right to sue the defendants for the illegal construction and that ... The right to build in accordance with the statute is a right....
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24492 • India - High Court of Kerala
A.HARIPRASAD, J
Issues: Whether a suit for declaration based on adverse possession can be maintained against a Grama Panchayath and whether ... 3. 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the respondents. ... The Privy Council, long time before, had held that the principle in Section 28 of the old Act is that if a person having a right to possession suffers his right to be barred by the law of limitation, his title itself is extinguished i....
1998 0 Supreme(Mad) 1547 • India - Madras
K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
of privacy and easementary right to light and air-Second appeal allowed. ... free flow of light and air in to plaintiffs house affected-Held, erroneous application law by the lower appellate court regarding right ... Therefore, what remains to be considered is as to whether the defendants are entitled to object or resist the plaintiff from keeping the window open which was already in existence and alleged to have been closed recently by the defendants and whether he can be prevented fr....
2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 525 • India - Kerala
A.HARIPRASAD
--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the erection of any wall, fence or building or the putting up of any overhanging structure or projection (whether on a temporary or permanent basis) on or over any land aforesaid shall be deemed to be occupation of such land. ... The Privy Council, long time before, had held that the principle in Section 28 of the old Act is that if a person having a right to possession suffers his right to be barred by the law of limitation, his title itself is extinguishe....
2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 324 • India - Calcutta
BIBHAS RANJAN DE
Successions Act, 1956 – Limitation Act – Section 59 – Specific Relief Act – Section 34 – Grant of injunction is an equitable relief - Whether ... Hornby, (1895) 2 Ch. 774, when the Defendant had evaded notice of the writ in the action and continued to build until substituted service was effected, a temporay injunction was granted ordering the Defendant to pull down all that had been built since the Plaintiff had warned him of his intention to ... Ferguson, (1891) 2 Ch. 27, the “Plaintiff filed a suit for an injunction re....
1993 0 Supreme(Guj) 403 • India - Gujarat
J.N.BHATT
with a view to avoid stamp fees enters into mortgage transaction in place of outright sale such party cannot be allowed to take ... This submission is totally meritless - Firstly no such custom is proved strictly as required under the law - Secondly even if a party ... own wrong - Thirdly if anything is done to save the stamp fees and a particular document is prepared with a specific nomenclature party ... Nanavaty for the defendant is sans substance. ... However the question which frequently arising before the Courts is....
2019 8 Supreme 1 • India - Supreme Court
RANJAN GOGOI, S. A. BOBDE, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER
– However, burden of proving existence of right in previous regime and recognition of right by new sovereign rested on party claiming ... (Paras 507, 508, 509 and 511) (a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babur as alleged by the plaintiffs or by Mir Baqi as alleged by defendant no. 13; and (b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged by defendant ... Wheth....
1985 0 Supreme(Kar) 329 • India - Karnataka
P.A.KULKARNI
Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction as against a true owner. ... The defendant who has been allotted the site in question had been put in possession of the property. ... Therefore, the defendant, in my opinion, has got a better title than that of the plaintiff who has none at all. ... The question in the present suit is not whether the first defendant has a subsisting title. ... But, if the right at law is not clear, or the breach is doubtful, and no ir....
Filter by Legal Phrase
