Skip to content


Dhaneshwar Tewari Vs. Antu Tewari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All115
AppellantDhaneshwar Tewari
RespondentAntu Tewari and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. in this case the court below has granted a decree recognizing the right of the defendants to stack manure on a certain plot of waste land, but otherwise confirming the injunction granted to the plaintiff by the trial court. the plaintiff appeals as regards the right to stack manure, he urges: (1) that a tenant cannot acquire a right of easement against his landlord as laid down by the full bench in udit singh v. kashi ram [1892] 14 all. 185; (2) that a right to store manure cannot be acquired by any length of time.2. as regards the first plea, the decree is not given against the landlord but against the plaintiff who is a perpetual lessee of the plot. the full bench ruling does not, therefore, apply to it. no authority is adduced in support of the second plea and 1 can see no.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. In this case the Court below has granted a decree recognizing the right of the defendants to stack manure on a certain plot of waste land, but otherwise confirming the injunction granted to the plaintiff by the trial Court. The plaintiff appeals as regards the right to stack manure, He urges: (1) That a tenant cannot acquire a right of easement against his landlord as laid down by the Full Bench in Udit Singh v. Kashi Ram [1892] 14 All. 185; (2) that a right to store manure cannot be acquired by any length of time.

2. As regards the first plea, the decree is not given against the landlord but against the plaintiff who is a perpetual lessee of the plot. The Full Bench ruling does not, therefore, apply to it. No authority is adduced in support of the second plea and 1 can see no reason why a right to stack manure could not be acquired in the same way as any other similar right. Such rights have, in fact, been recognized by the High Court in more than one instance.

3. The respondents refer to the case of Net Ram v. Tej Ram [1913] 11 A. L. J. 445 in which such a right was allowed even against the landlord as being an appurtenance to the tenancy of the party in whose favour it was allowed. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.


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