Saturday, October 19, 2019 | ePaper

Land-locked Property

Owners Can Claim Easement Of Necessity

  • Print
Appellate Division :
 (Civil)
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J     
Md Imman Ali  J     
AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury J
Anowara……………………….
………….Appellants
               vs
Abdul Rab Hawlader and
another…………………..
....................Respondents
Judgment
August 5th, 2015
Easement Act (V of 1882)
Section 13
Easement right of way-As he has an alternative pathway, he is not entitled to any relief by way of an order for easement of necessity.
There is little doubt that Section 13 of the Act is applicable only when properties owned jointly are partitioned amongst co-sharers, which is not, admittedly the scenario in the case. It is also revealed by the transcript of evidence that the plaintiff himself stated during cross-examination that he has an alternative pathway to the north-east side of his house, as such, he is not a land-locked property owner……………………(9 & 13)
AJ Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate, instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record-For the Appellant.
Mahbubey Alam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sayd Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.1.
None Respresented-For the Respondent No. 2.
Judgment
Md Imman Ali J : This appeal by leave was filed by the defendant before the trial Court, who challenges the judgment and the order of the High Court Division dated 25-4-2006 passed in Civil Revision No, 377 of 2000, making the Rule absolute.
2. The respondent No. 1 before us filed Title Suit No. 93 of 1996 (re-numbered as Title Suit No. 157 of 1997), in the Court of Additional Assistant Judge, Dhaka, seeking declaration on his claimed easement right of way over the suit land. He also sought an order of mandatory injunction for the removal of obstructions created by the defendant-appellant on his right of way. He averred that on 2-6-1981 he purchased 5½ decimals of land in SA Plot No. 3300, corresponding to RS Plot Nos. 11 and 241, and then mutated his name. On 4-1-1983, his plan to construct a 4-storied building received Dhaka Improvement Trust's (now RAJUK) approval and then he proceeded with construction work and has been residing in a portion of the so far completed building, while other parts of the building are occupied by his tenants.
3. Contiguous to his said house there exists a pathway 12 feet in breadth and 200 feet in length from the east to the west which meets with a major road, situated on the west. Plaintiffs predecessors were using the said pathway for over 20 years and there is no other pathway to lead to the road. In July 1995, as the defendant created obstruction, the plaintiff objected, but to no avail, and hence the suit.
4. Defendant No. 1's case is that there is no existence of any pathway as claimed by the plaintiff and it is not even mentioned in the kabala concerned by which he bought the land. There is no electricity post on the so-called pathway.
5. The case of the defendant No.2 is that she purchased 36½ decimals of land of CS Plot Nos. 3301, 3303 and 3304 from one Hafizuddin and others in 1981 and then duly mutated the land, demarcated her land by erecting 6 feet high wall all around. She also constructed a number of tin shed rooms for security guards. She also erected a partly constructed building; and of those tin sheds, one big room is used for poultry and she is owning and possessing the property she purchased and that the so-called pathway shown in the sketch map of the plaint is not a pathway at all and there is no existence of any such pathway in the CS, SA or RS map and the land which has been projected in the sketch map as a pathway is part of her land, which she has been possessing for a long time by erecting boundary wall. It is also her contention that since the plaintiff claims that he purchased his property from Plot No. 3300 in 1981 and constructed the building in 1995, there arose no scope for the plaintiff to use the so-called pathway for over 20 years.
6. The learned Assistant Judge, 4th Court, Dhaka, dismissed the suit on 24-6-1998, which prompted the plaintiff to prefer Title Appeal No. 251 of 1998, but the then learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Commercial Court No.2, Dhaka, also came up with a negative finding, dismissing  the appeal on 25-7-1999.
 (To be continued)

More News For this Category

Notice will be dispensed with if title of the landlord denied

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Sharif Uddin Chaklader JKhizir Ahmed Choudhury J Ramesh Chandra Das and others Appellants      vs Sureshwar Mazumdar and others Respondents    JudgmentJuly 7th, 2015

In case of failure of the borrower, 3rd party mortgage to be auctioned

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) JBM Hassan J Md Khairul Alam J  Rupali Bank Limited…..Petitioner vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, DhakaAnd others………………Respondents.JudgmentDecember 13th, 2018Artha Rin Adalat

Code of Civil Procedure

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Md Rezaul Hasan JAzadul Islam and others .............Defendant- Respondent-Petitioners vs Asis Bewa and others ...... Plaintiff-Appellant Opposite Parties Judgment March 7th, 2019 Code of

Cyber Law in Bangladesh

Rajib Kumar Deb :Global economic strength depends not only on strong digital communication infrastructure and hi tech digital technologies but also on state measurements in respect of Cyber law.

Staying Conviction during Pendency of an Appeal

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim J Md Mostafizur Rahman J AKM Fakhrul Islam……………..Appellant              vs     State ……Respondent November 26th, 2018 Order      Code of

Muslim Family Laws

(From previous issue)8. Mrs Rabeya Bhuiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing along with the learned Advocate Mr Mahmood Morshed, and, Mr. Shaleh Akrarn for the opposite parties, submits that

Failure of the principal borrower

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) JBM Hassan JMd Khairul Alam JRupali Bank Limited.........PetitionervsJudge, Artha Rin Adalat No.4, Dhaka and others..............RespondentsJudgmentDecember 13th, 2018Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)

Fugitive from law cannot get legal protection

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury J JBM Hassan JYousuf Gazi  (Md)………...………….PetitionerCourt of Sessions Judge, Khulna and Others……….. RespondentsJudgmentMarch 2nd, 2017Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972Article 102(2) It is

State Acquisition & Tenancy Act

Appellate Division :     (Civil)Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J  Md Imman Ali J AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury JHazi Mohammad Abdul Malek…………………Appellant           vs Jamal Hossain and others….…………….RespondentsJudgmentJuly 28th, 2015  State

Quasi Judicial Authority Cannot Set Aside Own Order

High Court Division :(Special Statutory Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub JSM Maniruzzaman J Commissioner,     Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate.....Appellant vsCustoms, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others. ........Respondents JudgmentMarch 12th, 2019Value