BHIMARAYA SAYABANNA Vs. BALAPPA SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants have questioned the correctness of the decision of the Courts below in granting the relief to the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the right of pathway, solely on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent had based his claim for the right to use the pathway on 'Immemorial use', while issues were framed and evidence led and accepted, for the statutory period prescribed under Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the right of 'immemorial use' is a right available under English common Law and not applicable to India and therefore in the absence of specific pleadings claiming the right under Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, the Court ought not to have granted the decree recognising the right of the plaintiff - respondent for the use of the pathway This is hardly a substantial question of law which is required to be decided by this Court as arising out of the Judgments of the Courts below. There is nothing wrong in the Court giving the relief prayed for by the plaintiff- respondent on the ground that he had satisfied the requirements of the statute in the matter of number of Tears over which he had exercised the right to use the pathway. If the statutory prescription of 20 years was satisfied, then the Court could not but grant him that right which the statute had conferred on him. I see no merit in the contention. This appeal is rejected.