NATHUSINGH Vs. SUKHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference the question to be answered by us is this: Whether in the event of the owner of a bhumiswami agricultural holding claiming a right of easement on a contiguous holding which is also held in bhumiswami rights, the easement materialises on peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous usage for 20 years as provided in the main body of section 15 of the INdian Easements Act, or whether on the ground that the land "belongs" to Government, it should be for a period of 60 years under the old Limitation Act, and 30 years under the present one, as provided in the last clause of the same section?

(2.) THERE are two other questions which arise in the same second appeal; first, one of fact, whether actually the claimant to the easement has proved such usage for a period of over 30 years ; the second, ons of law, whether, in view of the amendment of the Indian Limitation Act, even on the theory that this land "belongs" to the Government, the period would be only 30 and not 60 years. This would depend upon the applicability or otherwise of the "saving" section 31 (b). We do not feel called upon to say anything about these two questions which are entirely within the competence of the single Bench to which the case shall be returned with an answer to the first question already set out.

(3.) THERE is a certain quantity of case law and as the circumstances of each case are distinctive they do not have any cast-iron principle rigorously applicable ; but all the same, a general conception of where to draw the line between 'belonging to government" and belonging to somebody else" can be gathered. The two cases on which the learned single Bench relied in Bewnji v. Keihav [supra) are Municipal Board, Pilibhit v. Khalil ul Rahman, A I R 1929 All. 382. 3. A I R 1934 Mad. 575. and Chmna- sami Qaundan v. A. S. Balasundara,. A I R 1934 Mad. 575. In the Allahabad case the land cleaily be longed to government but being situated in a municipal area in the U.P. it was under the control of the municipality under the U. P. Municipality Act in the manner common all over our country. Even the municipal board could not create the easemen', because-