œOn a clear reading of the judgment of the high court, it is clear that there is no substantial question of law framed by the said court which is mandatory in the second appeal, and also it is beyond dispute that the trial court and court of the first appeal concurred on judgments along with which the respondent complied,” the Hon™ble bench, which included Hon™ble justice K.M. Joseph and Hon™ble justice S. Ravindra Bhat, held. Based on all the above said statements judgment of the high court is herein set aside.”
Furthermore, œThere cannot be a natural right for easement; it is the plaintiff™s responsibility to show his claim of the easement.” It is likewise undeniable that a case under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act of 1882 does not exist. As a result, the decisions of the High Court are manifestly incorrect.”
The case herein is an appeal against the judgment and order of the high court of
In the case herein the respondent in the present appeal filed for easement right against the appellant herein that he has easement right to reach his field which is adjacent to appellants field and that easement way is situated in the center of the appellant™s land. He also in addition to easement right to reach his property through walking sought to establish his right to ride the cart on the lands of the appellant during the non-cultivation period.
Subsequently, the trial court found respondent failed to establish his right as claimed. further, the second appellate court Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court. Thereupon, the respondent carried the matter in the Second Appeal.
In the Second Appeal, the High Court overruled the lower courts™ rulings and granted relief as follows: œright to enter the field by walk is allowed to the plaintiff through defendant™s pathway, but that does not extend to reaching the land by cart track or road.”
œOn a clear reading of the judgment of the high court, it is clear that there is no substantial question of law framed by the said court which is mandatory in the second appeal, and also it is beyond dispute that the trial court and court of the first appeal concurred on judgments along with which the respondent complied,” the Hon™ble bench, which included Hon™ble justice K.M. Joseph and Hon™ble justice S. Ravindra Bhat, held. Based on all the above said statements judgment of the high court is herein set aside.”
Furthermore, œThere cannot be a natural right for easement; it is the plaintiff™s responsibility to show his claim of the easement.” It is likewise undeniable that a case under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act of 1882 does not exist. As a result, the decisions of the High Court are manifestly incorrect.”
The case herein is an appeal against the judgment and order of the high court of
In the case herein the respondent in the present appeal filed for easement right against the appellant herein that he has easement right to reach his field which is adjacent to appellants field and that easement way is situated in the center of the appellant™s land. He also in addition to easement right to reach his property through walking sought to establish his right to ride the cart on the lands of the appellant during the non-cultivation period.
Subsequently, the trial court found respondent failed to establish his right as claimed. further, the second appellate court Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court. Thereupon, the respondent carried the matter in the Second Appeal.
In the Second Appeal, the High Court overruled the lower courts™ rulings and granted relief as follows: œright to enter the field by walk is allowed to the plaintiff through defendant™s pathway, but that does not extend to reaching the land by cart track or road.”