THE ENGLISH IDEA OF LAW [1911] How many of us have ever formulated in our minds what law means? I am inclined to think that the most would give a meaning that was never the meaning of the word law, at least until a very few years ago; that is, the meaning which alone is the subject of this book, […]
Day: January 2, 2019
THE LAWS OF WAR [1854] In the first instance, then, we are to ascertain what were the principles of right and justice, from any materials handed down to us; and if those principles agree with, or support the practical rules recorded by the same, or similar sources of information, such are to be accepted as belonging to the code of […]
![LAWS OF ENGLAND by WILLIAM BLACKSTONE [Selective reading]](https://advocatetanmoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/blackstone.jpg)
PARLIAMENT There is also no doubt but these great councils were held regularly under the first princes of the Norman line. Glanvil, who wrote in the reign of Henry the second, speaking of the particular amount of an amercement in the sheriff’s court, says, it had never yet been ascertained by the general assise, or assembly, but was left to […]
The second period of the British Constitution begins with the accession of the House of Tudor, and goes down to 1688; it is in substance the history of the growth, development, and gradually acquired supremacy of the new great council. I have no room and no occasion to narrate again the familiar history of the many steps by which the […]
While interpreting the document not only the contents have to be kept in mind, but the real intention of the parties is also to be determined. The form in which the document is styled is inconclusive for determination of intention of the parties. In this document it is nowhere mentioned that it was a sale Deed. The intention of the […]
The principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to administrative law and not between the private parties. Mis-interpretation or misconstruction of document on which claim of a party is based amounts to substantial question of law and such error can be corrected in Second Appeal The Madras High Court in the case of Ramakrishna Doss Chandrathna Doss Vs. P. Kesavalu Chetty […]
The Indian Easements Act, 1882 33. Suit for disturbance of easement. – The owner of any interest in the dominant heritage, or the occupier of such heritage, may institute a suit for compensation for the disturbance of the easement or of any right accessory thereto; provided that the disturbance has actually caused substantial damage to the plaintiff. Explanation I. -The […]
The plaintiff claiming a right of easement filed a suit out of which this appeal arises to restrain the first defendant from raising any wall which would obstruct his right to light and air through the doors and windows opened by him into the gali. Both the trial courts and the lower appellate court found that the gali was the […]
As existence of both a dominant tenement and servient tenement is essential to the creation and existence of an easement it is difficult to conceive of a position where a person can claim easement by prescription when he owns both the tenements. It may be permissible in the plaint to advance an inconsistent plea of ownership and easement alternatively, but it is necessary that the plaintiff should press one of them only either at the stage of evidence or a subsequent stage. When the dominant and servient tenement are in the ownership and possession of the same person acts done by him on the servient tenement are clearly referable to his possession of that tenement and hence there cannot be any easement by prescription,
Section 13 of the Easements Act 1882, permits easement by necessity and that cannot be claimed if an alternative passage is available, though it may be bit inconvenient or a longer for his ingress and egrees.
You must be logged in to post a comment.