Skip to content


Kamlapat Dubey and ors. Vs. Ram Raj and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All103; 79Ind.Cas.450
AppellantKamlapat Dubey and ors.
RespondentRam Raj and ors.
Excerpt:
adverse possession - license--construction of cattle troughs--long user. - - the plaintiffs claim to be the owners of that plot and complain that the defendants had without any right constructed certain cattle troughs and fixed certain pegs for tying cattle other a portion of the said land in the month of bhadon preceding the suit......the owners of that plot and complain that the defendants had without any right constructed certain cattle troughs and fixed certain pegs for tying cattle other a portion of the said land in the month of bhadon preceding the suit. the defendants, on the other hand, assert that the cattle troughs and pegs in question stand on their own land and have been in existence for more than 12 years prior to the suit. the courts below found that the land in question belonged to the plaintiffs but the cattle troughs had been in existence for more than 12 years prior to the suit. they dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as barred by time.2. the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants relies on the decision in framji cursetji v. goculdas madhowji 16 b. 338 : 8 ind. dec. (n.s.) 703. and contends.....
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 5842 Khasra, measuring 3 biswas 18 dhurs and situated in the village Mahnlia. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of that plot and complain that the defendants had without any right constructed certain cattle troughs and fixed certain pegs for tying cattle other a portion of the said land in the month of Bhadon preceding the suit. The defendants, on the other hand, assert that the cattle troughs and pegs in question stand on their own land and have been in existence for more than 12 years prior to the suit. The Courts below found that the land in question belonged to the plaintiffs but the cattle troughs had been in existence for more than 12 years prior to the suit. They dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as barred by time.

2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants relies on the decision in Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhowji 16 B. 338 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 703. and contends that such temporary user, even if it is of a long standing, can give the defendants no right to continue to occupy the land; but the user here is not of a temporary character. A place for the tying of cattle is one of the necessary adjuncts of an agriculturist's occupation and residence in the village. The cattle troughs in question are situated close to the house of the defendants and as the defendants have been allowed to use the land and to maintain the cattle troughs for more than 12 years without obstruction, the plaintiffs are not entitled to have those troughs removed. The troughs do not, however, occupy the whole land and no question of adverse possession can, therefore, arise.

3. The appeal is dismissed except in so far that the proprietary title of the plaintiffs to the land in dispute will remain unaffected. The parties will, under the circumstances, bear their own costs of this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //