REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA Appellant

V/S

LAMBODAR PANDA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BRIGHT V. WALKER [REFERRED TO]
TICKLE V. BROWN [REFERRED TO]
MILLS V. COLCHESTER CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
GOOD MAN V. SALTASH CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
EATON V. SWANSEA WATER WORKS CO. [REFERRED TO]
MOODY V. STCGGLES [REFERRED TO]
KUNJAMMAL V. RATHNAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
GARDNER V. HODGSON'S KINGSTON BREWERY CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RAMA CHANDRA V. KANDURI CHARAN [REFERRED TO]
PIARE LAL V. ISHAQ LAL [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN V. IKRAM [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR HUSSAIN V. AULAD HAIDER [REFERRED TO]
PHILLIPS V. HALLIDAY [REFERRED TO]
DIWAN V. JAGTA [REFERRED TO]
NATHURAM V. KALU [REFERRED TO]
T. RAJLU NAIDU V. M.E.R. MALAK [REFERRED TO]
PHOOLCHAND NARAYAN V. MURARI LAL NATHULAL [REFERRED TO]
PADDAYYA V. KRISHNAMURTY [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA TRIMBAK V. HARI MARTAND [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN V. DEOKALI [REFERRED TO]
RAU RAMA V. TUKARAM NANA [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL BISWAS VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BRAJASUNDER DEB VS. RAJA RAJENDRA NARAYAN BHANJ DEO [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI LAL MUKERJEE VS. ASUTOSH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SITI KANTA PAL VS. RADHA GOBINDA SEN [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJAH OF VENKATAGIRI VS. ARDHAMALA YAGADU [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 241 of 1955. The sole question involved is whether the plaintiffs were using the disputed pathway as of right.

(2.) The facts are short and simple. The plaintiffs commenced a suit for declaration of their right of way over the disputed land belonging to the defendants and for a direction that the defendants should remove the obstruction raised by them over the said land and for a permanent injunction restraining them from closing the pathway. The plaintiffs' whole case was that there is a public road (plot No. 52) running east-west between the homesteads of the parties and the suit pathway is situated on the following plots of the defendants and has its point of entrance from the aforesaid public road near the front of the plaintiffs' homestead and its point of departure on a village pasture land which is on the northeast of the said path-way and is being used as a wav by the plaintiffs for generations and for more than thirty years peaceably and openly and as of right to the knowledge of the defendants without any interruption. The said path-way was being used by the plaintiffs, their womenfolk and their cattle. It is due to certain quarrel between the parties that the defendants closed the southern end of tbe disputed path-way by raising a fence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the afore-mentioned declarations.

(3.) The defence was a complete denial of the existence of the pathway or the right claimed by the pJaintiffs. According to them whole plot was fenced on all sides. They, however, admitted that the present suit was the result of a quarrel regarding certain sebait disputes between the parties who are close relations.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. LAMBODAR PANDA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address