Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dhaneshwar Tewari Vs. Antu Tewari and ors.

Dhaneshwar Tewari vs Antu Tewari and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 29, 1926
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471621

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dhaneshwar Tewari

Respondent

Antu Tewari and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1927All115

Excerpt

- daniels, j.1. in this case the court below has granted a decree recognizing the right of the defendants to stack manure on a certain plot of waste land, but otherwise confirming the injunction granted to the plaintiff by the trial court. the plaintiff appeals as regards the right to stack manure, he urges: (1) that a tenant cannot acquire a right of easement against his landlord as laid down by the full bench in udit singh v. kashi ram [1892] 14 all. 185; (2) that a right to store manure cannot be acquired by any length of time.2. as regards the first plea, the decree is not given against the landlord but against the plaintiff who is a perpetual lessee of the plot. the full bench ruling does not, therefore, apply to it. no authority is adduced in support of the second plea and 1 can see no reason why a right to stack manure could not be acquired in the same way as any other similar right. such rights have, in fact, been recognized by the high court in more than one instance.3. the respondents refer to the case of net ram v. tej ram [1913] 11 a. l. j. 445 in which such a right was allowed even against the landlord as being an appurtenance to the tenancy of the party in whose favour it was allowed. i, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. In this case the Court below has granted a decree recognizing the right of the defendants to stack manure on a certain plot of waste land, but otherwise confirming the injunction granted to the plaintiff by the trial Court. The plaintiff appeals as regards the right to stack manure, He urges: (1) That a tenant cannot acquire a right of easement against his landlord as laid down by the Full Bench in Udit Singh v. Kashi Ram [1892] 14 All. 185; (2) that a right to store manure cannot be acquired by any length of time.

2. As regards the first plea, the decree is not given against the landlord but against the plaintiff who is a perpetual lessee of the plot. The Full Bench ruling does not, therefore, apply to it. No authority is adduced in support of the second plea and 1 can see no reason why a right to stack manure could not be acquired in the same way as any other similar right. Such rights have, in fact, been recognized by the High Court in more than one instance.

3. The respondents refer to the case of Net Ram v. Tej Ram [1913] 11 A. L. J. 445 in which such a right was allowed even against the landlord as being an appurtenance to the tenancy of the party in whose favour it was allowed. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial