HARENDRA NATH CHAKRABORTI Vs. ASIM SINDHU CHAKRABORTY
LAWS(CAL)-1981-1-10
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 13,1981

HARENDRA NATH CHAKRABORTI Appellant
VERSUS
ASIM SINDHU CHAKRABORTY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARISH CHANDRA V. PRANNATH [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA V. SATYA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA BOSE V. DISTRICT BOARD OF NADIA [REFERRED TO]
SUBBAMMA V. NARAIN MURTHI [REFERRED TO]
MANDAKINEE DEBEE VS. BASANTAKUMAREE DABEE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VELUMANI ALIAS N K MUTHUVELAPPAN VS. MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-165] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.N.Maitra, J. - (1.)The plaintiffs filed the suit after obtaining the permission of the Court according to the provision of Rule 3 of Order 1 of the Civil P. C. Their allegation is that the C. S. Plot No. 1434/1901 having an area of .1 decimal has been erroneously recorded in the name of defendant No. J in the R. S. Khatian. It is a public way and it is a part of plot Nos. 1846 and 1424. The disputed way is meant for the use by the public. Plots Nos. 1404, 1424 and 1846 form a public road. It has been shown in the sketch map attached to the plaint. The disputed path is a continuation of the public pathway. Its character has been sought to be changed because it has been made a bata plot. The general public have been using the same from time immemorial and they have acquired customary right and easement of necessity on the principles of lost grant. The defendant No. 1 threatened to obstruct that plot on the 1st Pous, 1379 B. S. The suit is for declaration of easement right and for an injunction.
(2.)The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs' allegations. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the entry in the R. S. Khatian is correct. The disputed property was never used by the general public and there is no case of easement right.
(3.)The learned Munsif stated that the issues were answered in the plaintiffs' favour. The suit was decreed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.