T.v.Ravi v. B.R. Mohan
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal, the Madras High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to a decree granting an easementary right over a cart track. The court held that transfer of dominant heritage automatically includes the easement right and ruled against the appellant's subsequent purchaser defense.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal was dismissed, decr ee of the lower appellate court was upheld, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. Costs awarded.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on 10.11.2016
Judgment delivered on 21.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal No.232 of 2015
and M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2015 T.V.Ravi ..Appellant / 3rd defendant -Vs1. B.R. Mohan .. 1st Respondent / Plaintiff 2. K.Subramaniyam .. 2nd & 3rd Respondent / 1st & 2nd 3. K.Duraisamy dependents
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 made in A.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2014 made in O.S.No.358 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy for R1 No appearance for R2 and R3 J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the 3rd defendant in a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The 1st respondent herein as the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration to declare his easementary right over the suit schedule cart track and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right of enjoyment of such easementary right.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the burden of proof shifts to the defendant in a suit for declaration of easementary right when the defendant denies its existence.
Whether an easementary right conferred by agreement can be validly exercised by a vendee of the dominant tenement despite Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibiting its separate transfer
Whether a subsequent purchaser of the servient tenement can defeat the plaintiff's claim based on an agreement entered into by the original owner.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
T.V. Ravi
- respondent
B.R. Mohan
- respondent
K. Subramaniyam
- appellant
K. Duraisamy
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court