Skip to content


Varadaya Shetti Vs. Tyampa Shetti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.315
AppellantVaradaya Shetti
RespondentTyampa Shetti and ors.
Excerpt:
easements act (v of 1882), section 15, explanation ii - interruption, what constitutes--immemorial right to casement, effect of. - 1. the finding is that the plaintiff has boon in. enjoyment of the right for at least forty years, which the judge says may be called immemorial right. we think that he means to find that enjoyment must be referred to a legal origin. it is, therefore, unnecessary for the plaintiff to rely on section 15 of the indian easements act. the decree of the subordinate judge must be set aside and that of the district munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate court.
Judgment:

1. The finding is that the plaintiff has boon in. enjoyment of the right for at least forty years, which the Judge says may be called immemorial right. We think that he means to find that enjoyment must be referred to a legal origin. It is, therefore, unnecessary for the plaintiff to rely on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.


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