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.

Hayagreeva Vs. Sami and anr.

Hayagreeva vs Sami and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 11, 1891
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/790296

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
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Easements Act - Act V of 1882, Section 24--Rights accessory to oan easement. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hayagreeva

Respondent

Sami and anr.

Legal References

Reported In
(1892)ILR15Mad286

Excerpt

easements act - act v of 1882, section 24--rights accessory to oan easement. - 1. we think that the lower courts were right in holding that the plaintiff's right to go into defendants' land for the purpose of repairing his wall and roof was a right accessory to the easement which was established in the former suit of having the roof of his house projecting on defendants' land and discharging the water on defendants' land; and the lower appellate court was quite right in holding that there must be some limit of time to the exercise of such accessory right; but we think it was in error in only allowing the right to be exercised on one occasion and thus rendering further litigation necessary when other repairs become necessary in future. we shall modify the decree of the lower appellate court by providing that plaintiff's right of entering upon defendants' land to repair his roof and wall shall only be exercised once a year after one month's notice to defendants and between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p. m. each party will bear his own costs of this second appeal.2. the memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We think that the lower Courts were right in holding that the plaintiff's right to go into defendants' land for the purpose of repairing his wall and roof was a right accessory to the easement which was established in the former suit of having the roof of his house projecting on defendants' land and discharging the water on defendants' land; and the lower Appellate Court was quite right in holding that there must be some limit of time to the exercise of such accessory right; but we think it was in error in only allowing the right to be exercised on one occasion and thus rendering further litigation necessary when other repairs become necessary in future. We shall modify the decree of the lower Appellate Court by providing that plaintiff's right of entering upon defendants' land to repair his roof and wall shall only be exercised once a year after one month's notice to defendants and between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p. m. Each party will bear his own costs of this second appeal.

2. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial