Skip to content


(Chaliki) Krishnamurthi Vs. Goli Paddayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad785
Appellant(Chaliki) Krishnamurthi
RespondentGoli Paddayya and ors.
Cases ReferredMani Lal v. Bannu Bai A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....is rs. 10,000. no affidavit has been filed for the petitioner. the respondents do not admit the value of survey no. 146 to be rs. 10,000. but assuming that the whole survey no. 146 is worth rs. 10,000, it is impossible to say that the matter in dispute relates indirectly to the whole of the survey no. 146. the petitioner relies on subramanya ayyar v. sellammal [1915] 39 mad. 843 and mani lal v. banni bai a.i.r. 1921 bom. 266. the former case does not help the petitioner and the latter is against him. but he points out that leave was afterwards granted by the privy council in the case in mani lal v. bannu bai a.i.r. 1921 bom. 266 as mentioned by macleod, c.j., in appayya v. lakhamogowda a.i.r. 1923 bom. 176. we do not know the grounds on which special leave was granted by the privy.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In para. 8 of the petition, the petitioner alleged that, as the easement in dispute in this case affected lands of the plaintiff of the value of Rs. 10,000, the appeal relates to property of the value of Rs. 10,000. The strip of land over which the right of way is declared is five yards broad and nearly 1/2 or 3/4 acre in area. Its value is admitted in the plaint to be Rs. 1,500. But the petitioner says that the value of the whole survey No. 146 over which the way passes is Rs. 10,000. No affidavit has been filed for the petitioner. The respondents do not admit the value of Survey No. 146 to be Rs. 10,000. But assuming that the whole survey No. 146 is worth Rs. 10,000, it is impossible to say that the matter in dispute relates indirectly to the whole of the survey No. 146. The petitioner relies on Subramanya Ayyar v. Sellammal [1915] 39 Mad. 843 and Mani Lal v. Banni Bai A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 266. The former case does not help the petitioner and the latter is against him. But he points out that leave was afterwards granted by the Privy Council in the case in Mani Lal v. Bannu Bai A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 266 as mentioned by Macleod, C.J., in Appayya v. Lakhamogowda A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 176. We do not know the grounds on which special leave was granted by the Privy Council. It related to an easement of light and air and it is possible that it was held that the whole house was affected by the easement. In the present case, it is impossible to say that the whole Survay No. 146 can be affected by the right of way, as the petitioner has got the right to fence the way from the land.

2. The view we take is in accordance with the view taken by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., in DeSilva v. De Silva [1904] 6 Bom. L.R. 403 though it, perhaps, was obiter in that case as pointed out by Macleod, C.J. in Mani Lal v. Bannu Bai A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 266. It is said that the matter is one of public importance. We do not agree with this view. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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