Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Pankajakshi Amma VS Gourikutty Amma...
2009 0 Supreme(Ker) 979 : In easement cases, when there is variance in the width of a pathway at different points, the width is determined based on the actual measurement and evidence presented. In this case, the Advocate Commissioner''''s report (Exhibit C1) noted that the pathway had a width of eight feet along item No.3 and three feet along item No.2. The court accepted the three-foot width along item No.2 as per the Commissioner''''s report, despite a conflicting measurement of one and a half feet for a thondu-like portion, because the thondu was considered part of the pathway''''s overall width. The courts found that the total width, including the thondu, was three feet, and this finding was based on the evidence and accepted by the lower courts. The determination of width is a factual matter, and the courts'''' finding on width, supported by evidence, does not involve a substantial question of law.Checking relevance for Ravi S/o Late. Kunjupaniken Vs Lekshmi (Died), D/o. Late Nangeli...
2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 545 : In easement cases, when there is variation in the width of a pathway at different points, the width of the easement is determined based on the actual width of the pathway that was used continuously and without interruption for the statutory period. In this case, the court modified the First Appellate Court''''s finding and recognized a right of easement over a pathway of three feet width on the northern boundary of the defendants'''' property, indicating that the width is fixed at the minimum or actual width that was consistently used, even if the pathway varies in width at different points.Checking relevance for Prasannakumari D/o Leelakuttyamma VS Krishnakumari D/o. Saradamma...
2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 208 : In easement cases where there is variance in the width of a pathway at different points, the width is determined based on the average width as established by credible evidence, particularly through the report of an advocate commissioner. In this case, the advocate commissioner reported that the pathway had an average width of 70 cms, even though the width varied at different locations. The court accepted this average width as the basis for the declaration of prescriptive easement, modifying the original claim of a 2-meter width to reflect the actual measured average. The court emphasized that the pathway''''s existence and continuous use were proven, and the declaration of easement should be confined to the dimensions actually established by the commissioner''''s report and plan, which included the average width of 70 cms.Checking relevance for Prasannakumari D/o Leelakuttyamma VS Krishnakumari D/o. Saradamma...
2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 203 : In easement cases, when there is variance in the width of a pathway at different points, the width is determined based on the average width as established by credible evidence, such as a commissioner''''s report. In this case, the advocate commissioner reported that the pathway had an average width of 70 cms, even though the width varied at different locations. The court accepted this average width as the basis for determining the extent of the prescriptive easement, rather than requiring a fixed or uniform width throughout. The court held that the right of prescriptive easement could be granted over a pathway of lesser width and extent than originally described in the plaint, as long as the existence and continuous use of the pathway were proven, and the average width was established by evidence. Thus, the determination of width in such cases is not based on a fixed measurement but on the average width as shown by the evidence, particularly from an official inspection and report.Checking relevance for Linu Varghese, S/o. Late V.V. Varughese vs George Jacob, S/o. Late V.G.Chacko...
2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1639 : In easement cases where there is variance in the width of a pathway at different points, the court must determine the exact length and width of the pathway passing through the relevant property (plaint schedule item No.2) by relying on credible evidence. The survey commission report and plan (Ext.C6 and C6(a)) may be used, but they are insufficient if they fail to clearly identify the pathway''''s dimensions in the specific property in dispute. The court emphasized that the commissioner and surveyor must be examined to clarify contradictions in measurements, and the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to establish the precise width of the pathway through the claimed property, especially when the original will deed is unavailable. The width at the starting point (19.5 feet) may not be conclusive if it does not align with the overall findings, and the court must deduce the actual width within the relevant property based on proper evidence.
